HILTON WIENER, AS BENEFICIARY OF LAND TRUST 2928-55
v.
GOLEX PROPERTIES, LLC AND ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ
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.
Hilton Wiener, as beneficiary of a land trust, appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract complaint against Golex Properties, LLC and Adrian Rodriguez. The county court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied Wiener's motion to disqualify counsel. The appellate court affirmed the disqualification denial but reversed the dismissal order.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to disqualify counsel but reversed the dismissal with prejudice. The court held that Wiener should have been granted leave to amend his complaint as justice required, and the dismissal must be without prejudice to allow him to file an amended complaint asserting additional claims.
[1] Dismissal with prejudice is improper when a plaintiff seeks leave to amend and the amendment would cure the defects in the original pleading, requiring instead dismissal…
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 intelligence“Leave of court to amend a pleading "shall be given freely when justice so requires."”
Citation to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a) regarding the standard for permitting amendments to pleadings
Wiener filed a complaint against Golex Properties, LLC and Adrian Rodriguez for breach of a purchase and sale agreement. The county court dismissed Ro…
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 Motion To Disqualify Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Marni A. Bryson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CC-010872XXXXSB.
Hilton Wiener, Boca Raton, pro se. Kenyetta N. Alexander and Mark R. Osherow of Osherow, PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellees.
KUNTZ, J. Hilton Wiener, as beneficiary of a land trust, filed a complaint against Golex Properties, LLC, and Adrian Rodriguez for breach of a purchase and sale agreement. The county court dismissed Wiener’s complaint with prejudice. The court also denied Wiener’s motion to disqualify counsel for Golex and Rodriguez. Wiener appeals both orders.
We affirm the order denying the motion to disqualify counsel without discussion. Our affirmance on that issue is without prejudice to the county court’s right to reconsider the order if it becomes apparent that counsel is a necessary witness.
But we reverse the court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The county court dismissed Rodriguez as a party after concluding that he executed the purchase and sale agreement as Golex’s agent and was therefore not a party to the agreement. The court dismissed Golex based on its conclusion that it could not “ignore a previously agreed upon liquidated damages provision because it is later not advantageous.”
Wiener argues that the court erred when it denied his request to amend the complaint. Generally, he states that he could amend the complaint and seek to nullify the liquidated damages provision and pierce the corporate veil.
We agree. Leave of court to amend a pleading “shall be given freely when justice so requires.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a); see also Ins. Concepts and Design, Inc. v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 785 So. 2d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted) (“While the granting of motions to dismiss with prejudice is generally not favored, it is proper if the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause of action.”).
We reverse the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On remand, the court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow Wiener the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ins. Concepts & Design, Inc. v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 785 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)