Door Systems, Inc. v. Vitolo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Door Systems, Inc. v. Vitolo

507 So. 2d 169, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1252, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1887

StatusPublished

This text of 507 So. 2d 169 (Door Systems, Inc. v. Vitolo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Door Systems, Inc. v. Vitolo, 507 So. 2d 169, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1252, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8144 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing Count II of plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice and remand with instructions to allow plaintiff yet another opportunity to amend.

Count II is supposed to be an action to impress and foreclose an equitable lien upon a fund and a parcel of real estate, all details of which are not significant.

Our analysis of Count II leaves us with the opinion that it, as framed, was properly dismissed. For instance, it starts off with the statement, “This is an action for damages in excess of $5,000.00.” It states the conclusion, “Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law” and does not allege ultimate material facts to support the averment as, for example, Chris Vitolo is insolvent and judgment proof. Moreover, the gravamen of plaintiff’s Count II is that Chris Vitolo wrongly represented that he owned the real estate in question and that the true owners knew and acquiesced in the misrepresentation. Yet Count II alleges that the true owners filed a notice of commencement listing themselves as owners, and plaintiff does not plead a basis for recovery after the time the true ownership was revealed.

Without laboring the matter further we feel that a cause of action for an equitable lien can be possibly discerned, albeit dimly, in light of the alleged misrepresentation made with the knowledge of the true owners, and the fact that the true owner may stand to be unjustly enriched to the tune of something over $500,000.00. See, e.g., Peninsular Supply Company v. C.B. Day Realty of Florida, Inc., 423 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Phelps v. T.O. Mahaffey, Inc., 156 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). We think that the ends of justice will be served by granting plaintiff an additional opportunity to re-plead.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing Count II of plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice and remand with instructions to allow plaintiff yet another opportunity to amend.

Count II is supposed to be an action to impress and foreclose an equitable lien upon a fund and a parcel of real estate, all details of which are not significant.

Our analysis of Count II leaves us with the opinion that it, as framed, was properly dismissed. For instance, it starts off with the statement, “This is an action for damages in excess of $5,000.00.” It states the conclusion, “Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law” and does not allege ultimate material facts to support the averment as, for example, Chris Vitolo is insolvent and judgment proof. Moreover, the gravamen of plaintiff’s Count II is that Chris Vitolo wrongly represented that he owned the real estate in question and that the true owners knew and acquiesced in the misrepresentation. Yet Count II alleges that the true owners filed a notice of commencement listing themselves as owners, and plaintiff does not plead a basis for recovery after the time the true ownership was revealed.

Without laboring the matter further we feel that a cause of action for an equitable lien can be possibly discerned, albeit dimly, in light of the alleged misrepresentation made with the knowledge of the true owners, and the fact that the true owner may stand to be unjustly enriched to the tune of something over $500,000.00. See, e.g., Peninsular Supply Company v. C.B. Day Realty of Florida, Inc., 423 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Phelps v. T.O. Mahaffey, Inc., 156 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). We think that the ends of justice will be served by granting plaintiff an additional opportunity to re-plead.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 169, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1252, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/door-systems-inc-v-vitolo-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack