Williams v. Davanzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Davanzo

891 So. 2d 613, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 969, 2005 WL 156758

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-1149, 3D04-1397

StatusPublished

This text of 891 So. 2d 613 (Williams v. Davanzo) 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

Williams v. Davanzo, 891 So. 2d 613, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 969, 2005 WL 156758 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jorge and Mario Williams appeal an order dismissing their third amended complaint with prejudice. We conclude that there must be further proceedings and remand for that purpose.

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must read the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Lopez-Infante v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 809 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) review denied, 832 So.2d 106 (Fla.2002). Read in that light, it is clear that plaintiffs-appellants intend to rely on an exception to the Statute of Frauds. See Brodie v. All Corp., 876 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Further, plaintiffs have alleged alternatively that if there is no enforceable contract, then they are entitled to compensation for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, for certain benefits conferred on defendant-appellee. See Hull & Co., Inc. v. Thomas, 834 So.2d 904, 906-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. First Union National Bank, 667 So.2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Fred McGilvray, Inc. v. Delphian Group, Inc., 424 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

The defendant argues that certain other documents in the case demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit. This reversal is, of course, without prejudice to the filing of a motion for summary judgment if appropriate.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jorge and Mario Williams appeal an order dismissing their third amended complaint with prejudice. We conclude that there must be further proceedings and remand for that purpose.

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must read the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Lopez-Infante v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 809 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) review denied, 832 So.2d 106 (Fla.2002). Read in that light, it is clear that plaintiffs-appellants intend to rely on an exception to the Statute of Frauds. See Brodie v. All Corp., 876 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Further, plaintiffs have alleged alternatively that if there is no enforceable contract, then they are entitled to compensation for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, for certain benefits conferred on defendant-appellee. See Hull & Co., Inc. v. Thomas, 834 So.2d 904, 906-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. First Union National Bank, 667 So.2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Fred McGilvray, Inc. v. Delphian Group, Inc., 424 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

The defendant argues that certain other documents in the case demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit. This reversal is, of course, without prejudice to the filing of a motion for summary judgment if appropriate.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

891 So. 2d 613, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 969, 2005 WL 156758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-davanzo-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack