Mullray v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullray v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.

638 So. 2d 199, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6138, 1994 WL 275828

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2421

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 638 So. 2d 199 (Mullray v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.) 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

Mullray v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 638 So. 2d 199, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6138, 1994 WL 275828 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order granting the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint filed by defendant, Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. Taking the well-pled allegations in the complaint as true, and resolving all doubt in favor of the pleading parties, Calvera v. Green Springs, Inc., 220 So.2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), approved in part, quashed in part, 239 So.2d 264 (Fla.1970); Price v. Morgan, 436 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 887 (Fla.1984), we hold that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract, Industrial Medicine Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 181 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see Carole Korn Interiors, Inc. v. Goudie, 573 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and promissory estoppel. See W.R. Grace & Co. v. Geodata Serv., Inc., 547 So.2d 919 (Fla.1989). The complaint adequately alleges ultimate facts supporting each element of the causes of action asserted. See Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA -1981).

The order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order granting the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint filed by defendant, Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. Taking the well-pled allegations in the complaint as true, and resolving all doubt in favor of the pleading parties, Calvera v. Green Springs, Inc., 220 So.2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), approved in part, quashed in part, 239 So.2d 264 (Fla.1970); Price v. Morgan, 436 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 887 (Fla.1984), we hold that the complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract, Industrial Medicine Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 181 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see Carole Korn Interiors, Inc. v. Goudie, 573 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and promissory estoppel. See W.R. Grace & Co. v. Geodata Serv., Inc., 547 So.2d 919 (Fla.1989). The complaint adequately alleges ultimate facts supporting each element of the causes of action asserted. See Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA -1981).

The order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 So. 2d 199, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6138, 1994 WL 275828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullray-v-barnett-bank-of-south-florida-na-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack