Reed v. Hart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reed v. Hart

680 So. 2d 460, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2226, 1996 WL 101217

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1079

StatusPublished

This text of 680 So. 2d 460 (Reed v. Hart) 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

Reed v. Hart, 680 So. 2d 460, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2226, 1996 WL 101217 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the dismissal of Appellants’ second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm the dismissal of the contract counts (counts I — III) as barred by the statute of frauds.

However, the counts alleging defamation (count IV) and intentional interference with a contractual relationship (count V) should not have been dismissed. Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812, 814 [461]*461(Fla.1994); Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844, 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Young v. Pottinger, 340 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (citing, inter alia, Prosser on Torts § 106, at 725-26 (2d ed. 1955)); cf. Dwight v. Tobin, 947 F.2d 455, 460 (11th Cir.1991).

We therefore affirm the dismissal of the contract counts (counts I — III), but reverse the dismissal of the defamation and intentional interference counts (counts IV and V), and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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