Patriotcom, Inc. v. Vega

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Patriotcom, Inc. v. Vega

821 So. 2d 1261, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10841, 2002 WL 1758294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-3688

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 821 So. 2d 1261 (Patriotcom, Inc. v. Vega) 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

Patriotcom, Inc. v. Vega, 821 So. 2d 1261, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10841, 2002 WL 1758294 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of dismissal because the trial court went beyond the four corners of the complaint in determining the motion to dismiss. In particular, the trial court considered corporate documents not attached to the complaint and an improperly raised affirmative defense in ap-pellee’s motion to dismiss. It is well settled that it is error for a court to grant a dismissal based upon factual evidence not contained in, and contradictory to, the complaint’s allegations. See Barbado v. Green & Murphy, P.A., 758 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). It is also well settled that an affirmative defense cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss, unless the defense appears upon the face of a prior pleading. See id.; accord Ramos v. Mast, 789 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Here, the motion to dismiss asserted a defense, lack of authority to bring the action, that had not been pled, did not appear on the face of the complaint, and was contrary to the complaint’s allegations. See Beach Roundhouse Town Corp. v. Skinner, 356 So.2d 881, 881-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Reversed.

WARNER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of dismissal because the trial court went beyond the four corners of the complaint in determining the motion to dismiss. In particular, the trial court considered corporate documents not attached to the complaint and an improperly raised affirmative defense in ap-pellee’s motion to dismiss. It is well settled that it is error for a court to grant a dismissal based upon factual evidence not contained in, and contradictory to, the complaint’s allegations. See Barbado v. Green & Murphy, P.A., 758 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). It is also well settled that an affirmative defense cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss, unless the defense appears upon the face of a prior pleading. See id.; accord Ramos v. Mast, 789 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Here, the motion to dismiss asserted a defense, lack of authority to bring the action, that had not been pled, did not appear on the face of the complaint, and was contrary to the complaint’s allegations. See Beach Roundhouse Town Corp. v. Skinner, 356 So.2d 881, 881-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Reversed.

WARNER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 So. 2d 1261, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10841, 2002 WL 1758294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patriotcom-inc-v-vega-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack