Wells v. Oceanage Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wells v. Oceanage Ass'n

755 So. 2d 185, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4246, 2000 WL 368647

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2000

DocketNo. 4D98-4254

StatusPublished

This text of 755 So. 2d 185 (Wells v. Oceanage Ass'n) 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

Wells v. Oceanage Ass'n, 755 So. 2d 185, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4246, 2000 WL 368647 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of Appellant’s first amended complaint as to count I, slander of title. As to that count, Appellant pleads the recording of a grossly inflated and false claim of lien and claims that the lien was recorded with knowledge of its falsity, causing special damages. See generally Brown v. Kelly, 545 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (citing Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 68 So.2d 180 (Fla.1953)). See also Allington Towers Condominium N., Inc. v. Allington Towers N., Inc., 415 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We find the pro se complainant states a cause of action, albeit inartfully worded and containing additional allegations that are superfluous to a slander of title claim. In reaching this conclusion, we note that we have looked solely to the four corners of Appellant’s pleading, without regard to any defenses that may be filed. See Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So.2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Although Appellees argue on appeal that the amended complaint was untimely filed, this does not appear to be the basis for Appellees’ motion to dismiss or the trial court order. As to all other counts, we affirm. We remand for further proceedings as to count I.

STONE, HAZOURI, JJ., and STETTIN, HERBERT, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of Appellant’s first amended complaint as to count I, slander of title. As to that count, Appellant pleads the recording of a grossly inflated and false claim of lien and claims that the lien was recorded with knowledge of its falsity, causing special damages. See generally Brown v. Kelly, 545 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (citing Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 68 So.2d 180 (Fla.1953)). See also Allington Towers Condominium N., Inc. v. Allington Towers N., Inc., 415 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We find the pro se complainant states a cause of action, albeit inartfully worded and containing additional allegations that are superfluous to a slander of title claim. In reaching this conclusion, we note that we have looked solely to the four corners of Appellant’s pleading, without regard to any defenses that may be filed. See Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So.2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Although Appellees argue on appeal that the amended complaint was untimely filed, this does not appear to be the basis for Appellees’ motion to dismiss or the trial court order. As to all other counts, we affirm. We remand for further proceedings as to count I.

STONE, HAZOURI, JJ., and STETTIN, HERBERT, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 185, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4246, 2000 WL 368647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-oceanage-assn-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack