Hamilton's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamilton's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co.

646 So. 2d 847, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12793, 1994 WL 712736

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

DocketNo. 94-267

StatusPublished

This text of 646 So. 2d 847 (Hamilton's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co.) 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

Hamilton's Bar & Grill, Inc. v. Bay Bank & Trust Co., 646 So. 2d 847, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12793, 1994 WL 712736 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. As to the two counts of the complaint alleging fraud, the trial court was required to take the plaintiffs allegation in its complaint as true that it did not know its equity had been fraudulently calculated until 1992. See Anderson v. Emro Mktg. Co., 550 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, whether plaintiff could have discovered the facts that gave rise to counts II and III with the exercise of due diligence remains an issue of fact.

Dismissal of count I alleging breach of oral agreement is AFFIRMED, dismissal of counts II and III is REVERSED, and the ease is REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. As to the two counts of the complaint alleging fraud, the trial court was required to take the plaintiffs allegation in its complaint as true that it did not know its equity had been fraudulently calculated until 1992. See Anderson v. Emro Mktg. Co., 550 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, whether plaintiff could have discovered the facts that gave rise to counts II and III with the exercise of due diligence remains an issue of fact.

Dismissal of count I alleging breach of oral agreement is AFFIRMED, dismissal of counts II and III is REVERSED, and the ease is REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 So. 2d 847, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12793, 1994 WL 712736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamiltons-bar-grill-inc-v-bay-bank-trust-co-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack