F.V. CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND FRANCES VALERA, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMUNITY BANK OF FLORIDA, INC. ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
F.V. Construction Corp. and Frances Valera appealed the dismissal of their amended complaint against Community Bank, which was struck as a sham pleading. The Third District reversed, holding that the amended complaint contained factual allegations presenting genuine issues for determination and therefore did not meet the legal standard for a sham pleading.
The amended complaint did not constitute a sham pleading and should not have been stricken. A sham pleading must be inherently false and based on plain or conceded facts clearly known to be false, and the amended complaint presented factual allegations with genuine issues yet to be determined on the merits.
[1] A pleading constitutes a sham pleading only if it is inherently false and based on plain or conceded facts clearly known to be false.
[2] A hearing on a motion to strike a pleading as a sham is not a hearing to resolve the merits of the issues, but to determine if genuine issues exist for determination.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To constitute a sham pleading the pleading must be inherently false and based on plain or conceded facts clearly known to be false.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes a sham pleading
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceF.V. Construction and Valera deposited approximately $12.5 million with Community Bank, received from a property sale. They alleged Community Bank rep…
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 Blue Sky Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
F.V. Construction Corp. (“F.V.”) and Frances Valera (‘Valera”) appeal a final judgment striking their amended complaint as a sham pleading and dismissing their action against the appellee, Community Bank of Florida, Inc. (“Community Bank”). We reverse the trial court’s determination and find that the amended complaint did not rise to the level of a sham pleading. Issues remain to be determined and, as such, there was no showing that the amended complaint was a plain fiction or undoubtedly false.
F.V.’s and Valera’s amended complaint against Community Bank alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of Florida’s Blue Sky Laws, breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and good faith. The allegations arose from F.V.’s and Valera’s dealings with Community Bank, David Brouwer, and Great American Advisors. The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that Community Bank represented that Brou-wer worked for Community Bank and was in charge of investments. Valera deposited approximately $12,500,000.00, received from the sale of a parcel of investment property, with Community Bank, and, after investing the funds, claims to have lost approximately $2,500,000.00 in principal. Community Bank claimed, in its motion to strike sham pleading, that Brouwer was not employed by Community Bank, that Valera was aware of same and, as such, had no cause of action against Community Bank.
The allegations of the amended complaint do not rise to the level of a sham pleading. To constitute a sham pleading the pleading must be inherently false and based on plain or conceded facts clearly known to be false. Decker v. Cnty. of Volusia, 698 So.2d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). A hearing on a motion to strike a pleading as a sham is not a hearing to resolve the merits of the issues, but to determine if there are any genuine issues to be determined. Meadows v. Edwards, 82 So.2d 733 (Fla.1955); Slatko v. Virgin, 328 So.2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The amended complaint factually alleges issues yet to be determined on the merits. As such, it cannot be considered inherently false and based on plain or conceded facts clearly known to be false; which is the standard required to subject a pleading to being stricken as a sham.1 See Meadows, 82 So.2d at 733; Decker, 698 So.2d at 650.
*1014Therefore, because the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to strike, see Upland Dev. of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Bridge, 910 So.2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr., 662 So.2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.150, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramallah, Inc. v. Brickell Grp. Constr. LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…erved.”); Belson v. Miller, 314 So. 3d 525, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“We review a lower court's ruling on a motion to strike pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150 for abuse of discretion.”); F.V. Constr. Corp. v. Cmty. Bank of Fla., Inc., 106 So. 3d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ("A hearing on a motion to strike a pleading as a sham is not a hearing to resolve the merits of the issues, but to determine if there are any genuine issues to be determined."); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b) (“Statements in a pl…
Authorities Cited
- Meadows v. Edwards, 82 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1955)
- Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K. EBY Constr., 662 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Slatko v. Virgin, 328 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Upland Dev. OF Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Whittaker Lloyd Bridge, 910 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Decker v. Cnty. OF Volusia, 698 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)