VICTOR MITRANI AND DELORES MITRANI, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ADMIRAL'S PORT TOWNHOMES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a judgment on the pleadings dismissing a breach of contract claim for failure to repurchase a condominium unit, holding that the complaint states a valid cause of action and that allegations in other counts cannot defeat the claim absent incorporation into the operative count.
A complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract to repurchase a condominium unit, and facts alleged in separate counts do not defeat the claim unless expressly incorporated into the count at issue.
[1] Facts alleged in separate counts of a complaint do not defeat a cause of action in another count unless those facts are expressly incorporated by reference into the count…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVictor and Delores Mitrani purchased a condominium unit from Admiral's Port Townhomes, Inc., which allegedly refused to repurchase the unit as require…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Victor and Delores Mitrani from an adverse final judgment on the pleadings entered below in favor of the defendant Admiral’s Port Townhomes, Inc. in a breach of contract action contained in count III of the complaint filed below1. We reverse the final judgment under review upon a holding that (a) count III of the complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract against the defendant for refusing to repurchase the plaintiffs’ condominium unit, and (b) the facts, as pled in counts I and II filed against certain codefendants not involved in this appeal, cannot, as urged, defeat this breach of contract claim because there is no allegation in count III which incorporates the facts pled in counts I and II, and, consequently, such facts form no basis for the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant in count III. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(g), 1.130(b); 40 Fla.Jur.2d Pleadings §§ 16-17, 49 (1982); c.f Vann v. Hobbs, 197 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (“[Ijnconsistent positions taken by a party through the pleadings [in different counts] he files in an action may not be used by an opposing party as proof of an issue.”); Hines v. Trager Constr. Co., 188 So. 2d 826, 828-29 (Fla. 1st DCA) (same), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1966).
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
. Counts I and II of the complaint are legal malpractice claims in which the defendant Admiral's Port Townhouses, Inc. is not sued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hines v. Trager Constr. Co., Inc., 188 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Vann v. Hobbs, 197 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Freeman v. Armstrong, 194 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1966)