Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 39504
Decision Date | 24 March 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 39504,39504 |
Citation | 246 So.2d 563 |
Parties | FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. David WALTERS and Arthur Courshon, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for petitioner.
S. Harvey Ziegler, of Walters, Moore & Costanzo, Miami, for David W. Walters; Ely R. Katz and Michael H. Salmon, Miami Beach, for Arthur H. Courshon, respondents.
Certiorari was granted to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 231 So.2d 240, which affirmed the dismissal with prejudice by the trial court of petitioner's second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint, omitting those parts not now pertinent, alleged the following:
'In April of 1967, the Defendants, acting jointly and severally, engaged the FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL, through its owner, the Plaintiff corporation, for a $100.00 per plate dinner to be given for the benefit of Hubert H. Humphrey, the Vice President of the United States.
'The dinner was in fact given and the hotel supplied food, drink, service and accommodation for the guests thereat, which said guests numbered several hundred, if not thousand.
'At the time that they engaged the hotel for the aforesaid dinner, the Defendants, jointly and severally, As principals, agreed to collect from the proceeds thereof and to remit to the hotel the agreed upon costs of the dinner * * *'
(Thereafter was set forth in detail prices to be charged and a detailed statement of what was furnished.)
It was respondents' contention that the above complaint did not state a cause of action because of a failure to specifically set forth the form of the agreement from which certain alleged obligations arose, as well as a detailed description of each element required to establish those obligations. Respondents' motion to dismiss further argued that the second amended complaint was so vague, indefinite, and ambiguous that it was impossible to frame a reply thereto. The final point submitted was that the complaint was, on its face, barred by the statute of limitations.
Rule 1.110, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., reads in part as follows:
We have held in the past that the primary intent of the above rule is to eliminate technicalities and simplify the procedures involved in the administration of justice. Wincor v. Turner (Fla.1968) 215 So.2d 3.
The second amended complaint, as set out above, alleges that an agreement was made between the representatives of the plaintiff corporation and the defendants whereby the plaintiff would furnish certain goods and services in return for an agreed upon rate of consideration from a fund that was to subsequently materialize; that the plaintiff furnished such goods and services and the fund in question did materalize; but that the defendants have not fulfilled their obligation by full payment of the agreed consideration. By this, the plaintiff has set forth allegations of facts sufficient to conclude that, if taken as true, some relief is warranted. Thereafter, a prayer is entered by plaintiff as to the amount that relief should be. This is a situation similar to Balbontin v. Porias (Fla.1968) 215 So.2d 732, where the allegations of the complaint as reflected by the record proper stated a cause of action but the District Court, on appeal, affirmed without opinion the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. In that case, we held that such an affirmance invokes our certiorari jurisdiction if the record proper shows the result to be in conflict with a decision of an appropriate appellate court as established in Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., (Fla.1965) 177 So.2d 221. Here the trial court ordered a dismissal with prejudice, but without explanation, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vienneau v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...a complaint for failure to state a cause of action does not reach the defects of vague and ambiguous pleading. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So.2d 563 (Fla.1971); Sheppard v. Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 322 So.2d 583, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Calhoun v. Epstein, 121 So.2d 8......
-
Foerman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
...JJ., concur. ROBERTS and ADKINS, JJ., dissent. 1 Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 198; Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v. Walters, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 563; Maiden v. Carter, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 168; Ocala Loan Company v. Smith, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 711; Pizzi v......
-
Payas v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., Case No. 2D16–3615
...the action on the ground that more specific allegations are required." (alteration in original) (quoting Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So.2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1971) ).B. Nondelegable dutyPayas next argues that the trial court erred in dismissing count I because he alleged in his co......
-
Liberty Tire and Rubber Inc. v. Lopez
...denied, 394 So.2d 1152 (Fla.1981); Winfield v. First New Haven National Bank, 392 So.2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So.2d 563 (Fla.1971); Feller v. Eau Gallie Yacht Basin Inc., 397 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also 24 Am.Jur.2d, Dismissal, Disco......
-
Contract cases
...not necessary to await the termination of that period before asking the courts for redress.”). 2. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters , 246 So.2d 563, 565 (Fla. 1971). §3:10.1.1 Elements of Cause of Action — 1st DCA To establish breach of contract, it is plaintiff’s burden to prove: (1) a ......