Rennoc, Inc. v. Merica, Burch & Dickerson, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rennoc, Inc. v. Merica, Burch & Dickerson, Inc.

914 So. 2d 1107, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18812, 2005 WL 3180035

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-4949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 914 So. 2d 1107 (Rennoc, Inc. v. Merica, Burch & Dickerson, Inc.) 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

Rennoc, Inc. v. Merica, Burch & Dickerson, Inc., 914 So. 2d 1107, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18812, 2005 WL 3180035 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order dismissing Ren-noc’s complaint with prejudice.

The trial court looked outside the four corners of the complaint in finding that the contracts at issue were executed in Nevada. The applicable law is significant here. If Nevada law applies, the six-month limitation period placed in these Contracts may be valid, while if Florida law applies, it is undisputed that the parties’ contractual reduction of the limitations period is invalid. § 95.03, Fla. Stat.

The complaint’s factual allegations must be taken as true and all inferences construed favorably to the plaintiff, Rennoc, as non-moving party. Atkins v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 873 So.2d 397, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The trial court’s finding that the complaint was executed in Nevada required an inferential step that was not in favor of Rennoc. As a result, dismissal is improper. We remand for further proceedings.

STONE, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ, concur.

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