Thomas v. Soper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thomas v. Soper

464 So. 2d 255, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 560, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1985

DocketNos. 84-141, 84-434

StatusPublished

This text of 464 So. 2d 255 (Thomas v. Soper) 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

Thomas v. Soper, 464 So. 2d 255, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 560, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Case No. 84-141 is hereby dismissed. In case No. 84-434 we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the appellants’ action with prejudice. In our view the pleadings of appellants, while inartfully drawn and including allegations as to statutes upon which appellants cannot rely, stated a cause of action for common-law uncon-scionability as to the lease transactions in question. See Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We reject appellees’ contention that the action was properly dismissed because of the existence of defenses such as laches, statute of limitations, subsequent assignments and other such defensive matters raised by the appellees. While those matters may constitute valid defenses, an issue we do not decide or comment upon, we do not believe they constituted proper grounds for granting the motion to dismiss the pleadings.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Case No. 84-141 is hereby dismissed. In case No. 84-434 we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the appellants’ action with prejudice. In our view the pleadings of appellants, while inartfully drawn and including allegations as to statutes upon which appellants cannot rely, stated a cause of action for common-law uncon-scionability as to the lease transactions in question. See Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We reject appellees’ contention that the action was properly dismissed because of the existence of defenses such as laches, statute of limitations, subsequent assignments and other such defensive matters raised by the appellees. While those matters may constitute valid defenses, an issue we do not decide or comment upon, we do not believe they constituted proper grounds for granting the motion to dismiss the pleadings.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 255, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 560, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-soper-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack