LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 3D03-3328.
Citation | 889 So.2d 991 |
Decision Date | 22 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 3D03-3328.,3D03-3328. |
Parties | Devil LeGRANDE and Eliamise LeGrande, his wife, Appellants, v. Joseph Johnson EMMANUEL and Jacques St. Louis, Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Remer Georges-Pierre, P.A. and Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Miami, for appellants.
Carl A. Richardson, for appellees.
Before GREEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Devil Legrande, a Baptist minister, and his wife Eliamise, sued two congregational members, appellees Joseph Johnson Emmanuel and Jacques St. Louis, for slander, slander per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Prior to filing an answer, the appellees moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action on various grounds. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. This appeal followed.
The bases for all of the counts in the complaint are encompassed in the following allegations:
Based upon these allegations, the appellees moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the complaint failed to state a cause of action for slander; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the First Amendment barred the court from resolving this dispute and (3) the plaintiffs failed to join the church and the Florida Baptist Convention as indispensable parties.
We, first of all, reverse the dismissal of the counts for slander and slander per se because they state a cause of action. The allegation that the appellees told third parties that Pastor Legrande purchased a 2002 Mercedes with cash stolen from the church is legally sufficient to state a cause of action for slander. See Shedeke v. Gomez, 837 So.2d 1122, 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
(); Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ( ) Bobenhausen v. Cassat Ave. Mobile Homes, Inc., 344 So.2d 279, 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) ().
cert. denied Ferry Pass United Meth. Church v. Carnesi, 537 U.S. 1190, 123 S.Ct. 1270, 154 L.Ed.2d 1023 (2003).
We do, however, affirm the trial court's dismissal of the count for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We do not believe that the conduct complained of, taken as true, rises to the level of extreme conduct necessary to support a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The elements for this tort are:
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) of Torts, § 46 cmt. d (1965). Although we recognize that being branded a thief in front of one's parishioners might certainly be unsettling, embarrassing, and/or humiliating for a member of the clergy, we do not believe that this alleged conduct is the type of extreme and outrageous conduct needed to support a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress as a matter of law. Id. See, e.g., Shedeke v. Gomez, 837 So.2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 4th...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frias v. Demings
...in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So.2d 991, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). “Whether alleged conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a ......
-
Hill v. Lee Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...care, and delay in transporting remains failed to state a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress); Legrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So. 2d 991, 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (clergyman falsely branded a thief in front of parishioners failed to state claim of intentional infliction of emoti......
-
Johnson v. Massey
... ... intentional infliction of emotional distress) ... ■ Legrande v. Emmanuel , 889 So.2d 991, 995 ... (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that falsely accusing a ... ...
-
Malverty v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
...in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. LeGrande v. Emmanuel , 889 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citation omitted). In evaluating whether conduct is outrageous, "the subjective response of the person who is the ta......
-
Business litigation
...caused the plaintiff emotional distress. (4) The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe. [ LeGrande v. Emmanuel , 889 So. 2d 991, 994-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).] “Severe emotional distress” is conduct that would cause an average member of the community to resent the perpetrator......
-
Intentional torts
...distress was severe. Source Deauville Hotel Management, LLC v. Ward , 219 So.3d 949, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); LeGrande v. Emmanuel , 889 So.2d 991, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). See Also 1. Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Condo. Ass’n, Inc. , 307 So. 3d 938, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). 2. Deauville Ho......
-
Negligence cases
...to another; and 4. the plaintiff must have a close personal relationship to the directly injured person.” Source LeGrande v. Emmanuel , 889 So.2d 991, 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), citing Zell , supra . NEGLIGENCE CASES 2-9 Negligence Cases §2:10 See Also 1. Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Dade County P......
-
So I finally understand the "impact rule" but why does It still exist?
...or impact, and his emotional damages were intangible, the impact rule applied to preclude recovery of damages. (67) LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), presented the Third District with yet another case where the court held the impact rule barred recovery. (68) There, t......