Helms v. General Film Development Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1091,76-1091 |
| Citation | 346 So.2d 1064 |
| Parties | Ralph HELMS, Minnie Goodman and Norman F. LeFevre, Appellants, v. GENERAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Appellees |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Guy B. Bailey, Jr. and William Berger, Miami, for appellants.
James Whitmore Miller, Coral Gables, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.
The plaintiffs appeal a judgment dismissing their complaint with prejudice. The order was entered pursuant to defendant's motion to dismiss prior to answer. The allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. See O'Neal v. Crumpton Builders, Inc., 143 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Inasmuch as it does not affirmatively appear that the plaintiff does not have a cause of action, it was error to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of an original contract and two later supplemental agreements. The original contract provided, among other things, for payment by the defendants to the plaintiffs of $43,470.00, of which $10,000.00 was actually paid.
The first supplemental agreement, executed by counsel for the parties, provided for payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of a total of $11,157.00, plus interest. The second supplemental agreement provided for payment by the defendants to the plaintiffs of $32,471.00, plus interest. It also provided that all provisions of the original contract not in conflict with the second supplemental agreement remain in full force and effect.
Plaintiffs sued for compensatory damages of $28,471.00 and for punitive damages, alleging breach of contract and fraud.
The first settlement contract, which was attached as an exhibit to the complaint, contained a penalty for failure of defendants to comply with the agreement. It is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DuBrul v. Citrosuco N. Am., Inc.
...dismissed on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.” Vienneau, 548 So.2d at 860 (citing Helms v. General Film Development Corp., 346 So.2d 1064 (Fla.App.1977); Spindler v. Kushner, 284 So.2d 481 (Fla.App.1973)). Accord: Lonestar Alternative Solution, Inc. v. Leview–Boym......
-
Smith v. Smith, 79-546
...interest as she made in compliance with the terms of the final judgment which we have now reversed. Cf. Waskin v. Waskin, supra, at 346 So.2d 1064. Finally, we reverse the determination that Mrs. Smith has no interest in the certificate to 50% Of the shares in the Yellowstone Club, which wa......
-
Vienneau v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...alleged, a complaint should not be dismissed on motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Helms v. General Film Development Corp., 346 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Spindler v. Kushner, 284 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA With these principles in mind, the trial court was bound to a......
-
Intercoastal Realty Inc v. Tracy, Case No. 09-CV-62035-COHN/SELTZER.
...from this lease term.” Cf. Vienneau v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 548 So.2d 856, 860 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (citing Helms v. Gen. Film Dev. Corp., 346 So.2d 1064 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (“Generally speaking, unless it appears as a matter of law that a contract cannot support the action alleged, a c......