Gates v. Utsey
| Citation | 177 So.2d 486 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. G-178,G-178 |
| Parties | Ethelee G. GATES, Appellant, v. George E. UTSEY, Sr., Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
E. K. McIlrath, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Tracy Baxter, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The appellant, Ethelee G. Gates, plaintiff below, brought an action at law against the appellee, George E. Utsey, Sr., and one Arthur L. Patterson to recover actual and punitive damages for an alleged slander and disparagement of title to certain real property owned by plaintiff.
The original complaint was dismissed as to defendant Utsey with leave to amend, which was done. Defendant Utsey moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and on November 12, 1964, the motion was granted as to said defendant with prejudice. The order of dismissal, here appealed, held the amended complaint defective 'because it fails to allege that the Defendant, George E. Utsey, Sr., Falsely, willfully and maliciously caused the deed in question to be recorded,' and recites that counsel for defendant Utsey represented that he 'had no knowledge of the false nature of the deed at the time of recordation and that the Plaintiff does not allege that at the moment of the recording, the Defendant, Utsey, recorded the instrument maliciously.'
On January 4, 1965, appellant filed notice of appeal to review said judgment of dismissal, and on January 22, 1965, appellee Utsey moved the trial court to amend said judgment of dismissal so as to reflect that it was counsel for appellant rather than counsel for appellee who represented to the trial court that at the time appellee caused the spurious deed to be recorded appellee had no knowledge of the falsity thereof. On January 29, 1965, the trial court, over objection of appellant, entered an order purporting to amend the judgment of dismissal in accordance with said motion. We pause to observe that on the latter date the trial court had lost jurisdiction of said cause and the efficacy of said amendatory order is therefore questionable. However, the order does not materially affect the issues on this appeal and no harmful error is shown to have resulted therefrom. It is well settled that the adoption by the trial court of an erroneous basis for a proper conclusion will not operate to vitiate the latter; and it follows that such an error will be ignored where, as in this case, it does not affect the conclusion reached on the appeal.
The amended complaint alleged in substance: That defendant Utsey was engaged in the business of buying and selling real property and negotiating mortgage loans on such property; that his co-defendant, Arthur L. Patterson, who makes no appearance on this appeal, was employed by him to further said business pursuits; that in the course of such employment Patterson, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, willfully, maliciously and falsely made or caused to be made, executed and delivered to Utsey a certain false and forged instrument purporting to be a warranty deed of conveyance from the plaintiff to defendant Utsey of certain real property owned by plaintiff in Duval County, Florida, intending thereby to slander, disparage and cloud plaintiff's title; that on December 17, 1963, defendant Utsey caused said spurious deed to be recorded in the public records of said county; that on or about March 19, 1964, defendant Utsey, with full knowledge of said facts, refused to deliver to plaintiff a good and sufficient recordable document renouncing and disavowing the purported interest held by him under said spurious deed; that on or about March 23, 1964, defendant Utsey maliciously and in wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff's title in and to the land clouded by said deed, conveyed or attempted to convey the same to 'Ethelee G. Gates, married and Daniel Gates, her husband,' persons unknown to plaintiff and having no interest in said land; and that defendant Utsey has at all times since refused and declined to quitclaim said land to the plaintiff by a good and legally sufficient recordable document disavowing said slander, disparagement and cloud.
It is further alleged that subsequent to the recordation of said spurious deed and prior to March 12, 1964, plaintiff verbally agreed to sell the subject real property to one Tyrie Boyer for $1,950.00, conditioned on her ability to furnish clear title thereto; that the pendency of said transaction was known to defendant Utsey; that a subsequent title search disclosed the recordation of said spurious deed and the defendant Utsey, being fully informed in the premises, continued to claim an interest in said land on the basis of said deed, which prevented plaintiff from consummating the sale thereof to Tyrie Boyer; and that defendant Utsey thereupon entered into negotiations with said Boyer and sold another parcel of land to him. We decline to pass upon the materiality of the allegations mentioned in this paragraph and our decision herein is without prejudice to the right of defendant Utsey to plead thereto as he may be advised.
Error is assigned to the entry of the order dismissing this cause as to defendant George E. Utsey, Sr., and in having denied plaintiff an opportunity to further amend the complaint. The questions presented by appellant's statement of the points involved on this appeal may be paraphrased as follows:
1. Where in a suit of this nature the complaint alleges that the defendant, with knowledge of the facts, retained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Transp. v. Weisenfeld
...single subject rule), certainly the statute in the present case was invalid because of a lack of power to enact.4 See, e.g., Gates v. Utsey, 177 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).5 Further, since the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 6(a) (unlike the United States Constitution), conditio......
-
Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc.
...and if it is not privileged.” Home Invs. Fund v. Robertson, 10 Ill.App.3d 840, 295 N.E.2d 85, 87 (1973) (citing Gates v. Utsey, 177 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1965)). In Huff, 319 S.C. at 149–50, 459 S.E.2d at 891, the court found a jury reasonably could conclude the defendant publishe......
-
Phillips v. Epic Aviation, LLC
...disparaging the plaintiff's title, (c) which are not true in fact, and (d) which cause the plaintiff actual damage.Gates v. Utsey , 177 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). More recently, a Florida appellate court stated:In a disparagement action the plaintiff must allege and prove the follo......
-
Procacci v. Zacco
...So.2d 180 (Fla.1953); Continental Development Corp. v. Duval Title and Abstract Co., 356 So.2d 925 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Gates v. Utsey, 177 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). On the other hand, tortious interference with a contractual relationship involves: "(1) the existence of a business relati......
-
Real property actions
...disparaging the plaintiff’s title; 3. which are not true in fact; and 4. which cause the plaintiff actual damage. Source Gates v. Utsey, 177 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). §13:40.1.2 Elements of Cause of Action — 2nd DCA Recovery in an action for slander of title requires proof that a ......