FIRST GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF JACKSONVILLE, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SILLA MARGARET COPELAND, DECEASED, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),
v.
WILLIE FRANK WILLIAMS AND RUDOLPH WILLIAMS, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS)
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.
An estate administrator appealed the dismissal of a complaint seeking recovery of proceeds from the sale of property that the decedent had deeded to defendants in 1968 but continued to control until her death in 1973. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, or constructive trust, particularly given allegations suggesting an inter vivos gift.
The trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss because the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the checks were the decedent's property or to support the claims of unjust enrichment, fraud, undue influence, and abuse of confidence; moreover, the allegations affirmatively suggested an inter vivos gift, which would defeat the claims.
[1] A complaint must allege facts to support its conclusions, not merely state conclusions.
[2] A complaint alleging conversion, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust must plead specific facts supporting these claims.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Although the plaintiff alleges that the checks were the property of the decedent, it does not allege facts to support this conclusion.”
Establishes that conclusory allegations without factual support are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1968, the decedent deeded real property to defendants with no consideration paid. The decedent maintained complete control over the property and de…
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 Abuse Of Confidence cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
By interlocutory appeal, plaintiff seeks reversal of the trial court’s order dismissing its amended complaint.
The allegations of the amended complaint are as follows:
In 1968, the decedent deeded certain real property to the defendants. The deeds were recorded. No consideration was paid for the deeds. At all times thereafter, the decedent considered the property to be her property and exercised complete control over it. The defendants never exercised any right of ownership.
In 1973, the property was sold. The decedent paid the seller’s closing costs and attended the closing along with one of the defendants. The purchaser paid for the property by giving a $9,642.34 check to each of the defendants. One of the defendants endorsed the check payable to him and delivered it to the decedent. The decedent placed this check along with the other check in her pocketbook. Several days later, the decedent died. One of the defendants removed the checks from the decedent’s pocketbook, keeping his check, and delivering the other check to its payee, the other defendant.
Plaintiff seeks to recover the value of the two checks on the theories of conversion, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants converted the checks to their own use, that the defendants are unjustly enriched, because they negotiated the checks for their own use, and that defendants hold the funds paid for the property as constructive trustees, because they held the property as constructive trustees. In further support of the constructive trust theory, it is alleged that as a result of fraud, undue influence and abuse of confidence, defendants will be unjustly enriched unless the court imposes a constructive trust on the proceeds of the checks.
The trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Although the plaintiff alleges that the checks were the property of the decedent, it does not allege facts to support this conclusion. In addition, the plaintiff fails to allege facts to support its allegations of unjust enrichment, and fraud, undue influence and abuse of confidence. These factual allegations are essential. Particularly is this necessary when the allegations affirmatively indicate an inter vivos gift from the decedent to the defendants.
It should be pointed out that the trial court gave leave to plaintiff to file a second amended complaint, but plaintiff chose not to do so.
The action taken by the trial court is affirmed, and the interlocutory appeal is dismissed.
McCORD, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willinsky v. State, 360 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1978)…ADKINS, Justice. By petition for certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, (Willinsky v. State, 328 So. 2d 537 [Fla. 3d DCA 1976]), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court (Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 [Fla.1975]) and a prior decision of the Third District Court of Appeal (Jones v. State, 200 So. 2d 574 [Fla. 3d DCA 1967]) on the sam…
-
Dyson v. Dyson, 483 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ertaining the nature of the claim.” Parker v. Panama City, 151 So. 2d 469, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). In this context, the factual allegations are an essential. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b)(2); First Guaranty Bank & Trust Company of Jacksonville v. Williams, 328 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). When testing the sufficiency of a complaint, all the allegations of the complaint are taken as true. Strickland v. Commerce Loan Company of Jacksonville, 158 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Crutchfield v. Adams, 152 So. 2d 808 (…