Everidge v. Advantage Venture Partners, Ltd.

880 So. 2d 691, 29 Fla. L. Weekly 1011, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5575
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 23, 2004
DocketNo. 5D03-1953
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 880 So. 2d 691 (Everidge v. Advantage Venture Partners, Ltd.) 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
Everidge v. Advantage Venture Partners, Ltd., 880 So. 2d 691, 29 Fla. L. Weekly 1011, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5575 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin J. Everidge appeals a final order dismissing his fourth amended complaint with prejudice. Everidge argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint as it adequately stated causes of action for breach of an oral contract, fraud in the inducement, and defamation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In reviewing the propriety of an order dismissing a complaint, we confine our analysis to the four corners of the complaint and accept all well pled allegations as true. Because the matter presents a question of law, we review the matter de novo. Fox v. Prof'l Wrecker Operators of Fla., Inc., 801 So.2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Having carefully reviewed the complaint, we agree that the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice each of the counts in Everidge’s fourth amended complaint except for counts III and IV for defamation. Those counts plead the requisite facts to establish causes of action for defamation. See Bass v. Rivera, 826 So.2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (setting forth the four elements that must be pled in an action for defamation). With respect to those claims, the matters raised in the appellees’ motion to dismiss are more appropriately asserted as defenses.

We reverse the order dismissing Ever-idge’s claims for defamation, but affirm the remainder of the order dismissing the other counts with prejudice.

■ AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ranieri v. Paincare Holdings, Inc.
889 So. 2d 106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
880 So. 2d 691, 29 Fla. L. Weekly 1011, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everidge-v-advantage-venture-partners-ltd-fladistctapp-2004.