BRIC MCMANN INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, A LOUISIANA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
REGATTA BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND ALBERT DOCOBO, 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.
Bric McMann Industries appeals the dismissal of its nine-count complaint against Regatta Beach Club Condominium Association for alleged breaches of contract and tortious interference. The court partially affirmed and partially reversed the dismissal, allowing most counts to proceed while upholding dismissal of fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims.
The court affirmed dismissal of Count IV (fraudulent misrepresentation) and Count VI (unjust enrichment), and affirmed dismissal of portions of Count I concerning unenforceable settlement agreement provisions. However, the court reversed dismissal of the remaining portions of Count I and Counts II, III, V, VII, VIII, and IX, allowing those claims to proceed.
[1] A trial court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action is reviewed de novo.
[2] A party may concede that certain provisions of a settlement agreement are unenforceable while still preserving a breach of contract claim based on other provisions of the…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court must accept the material allegations as true and is bound to a consideration of the allegations found within the four corners of the complaint.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing dismissal motions and how courts must view factual allegations at the pleading stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBMI purchased seven commercial condominium units at Regatta Beach Club and engaged in approximately a decade of litigation with the Association over i…
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 Enforceability Of Contract Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Brie McMann Industries, Inc. (BMI), appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its nine-count complaint against Regatta Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc. (the Association), for failure to state a cause of action. BMI purchased seven commercial condominium units at the Regatta Beach Club. For approximately a decade, BMI and ,the Association have been engaged in litigation due to the Association’s alleged efforts to prevent BMI from using its commercial units. The parties executed a settlement agreement in 2010, but the agreement did not end the litigation, and multiple portions of the agreement were ultimately held unenforceable by the trial court, in a prior proceeding. In its operative complaint, BMI alleges nine counts’ worth of contractual breaches and torts committed by the Association in the course of repeatedly preventing BMI from using its commercial condominium units.
After de novo review and the benefit of oral argument, we affirm without comment the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count IV (fraudulent misrepresentation) and Count VI (unjust enrichment). And, as BMI concedes in its initial brief, portions of Count I (breach of contract) were properly dismissed. Specifically, BMI agrees it cannot state a breach-of-contract claim based on breaches of paragraphs 2(C)(10)— (14) and portions of paragraph 2(C)(6) of the settlement agreement.1
However, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the alleged breaches in Count I which pertain to the rest of the settlement agreement. Likewise, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count II (tortious interference), Count III (breach, of express warranty), Count V (trespass), Count VII (failure to maintain common elements/breach of contract), Count VIII (tortious interference with a business relationship), and Count IX (tortious interfer*470ence with a business relationship). See generally Murphy v. Bay Colony Prop. Owners Ass’n, 12 So.3d 924, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court must accept the material allegations as true and is bound to a consideration of the allegations found within the four corners of the complaint.”).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.
VILLANTI, WALLACE, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bric McMann Indus. Inc. v. Regatta Beach Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 378 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…for tortious interference with various business relationships, and its claims for breach of express warranty, trespass, and failure to maintain common elements/breach of contract. See Bric McMann Indus., Inc. v. Regatta Beach Club Condo. Ass'n, 223 So. 3d 469, 469-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). On remand, BMI sought leave to amend its complaint to add claims for punitive damages on each count of its complaint except the counts for breach of express warranty and trespass. In support of its motion, BMI filed…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. BAY Colony Prop. Owners Ass'n & Victor Coveduck, 12 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Allan v. Allan, 12 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)