Jester v. Pawley, 245 So. 3d 859

Christopher and Denise Jester sued multiple defendants, including Carol Pawley, alleging various tort and statutory claims arising from a business/transaction dispute; Pawley is the only defendant at issue on appeal.
The trial court dismissed all claims against Pawley with prejudice; the Jesters appealed.
Claims included breach of fiduciary duty, FDUTPA violations, violations of sections of the Florida real estate statutes, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, rescission, fraud in the inducement, and unjust enrichment.
The trial court held that negligent misrepresentation, fraud, rescission, and fraud in the inducement were barred by the statute of frauds; it also concluded the statute of frauds barred the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed that count with prejudice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the fiduciary/FDUTPA/statutory and emotional distress claims without further discussion, affirmed dismissal of the fraud-related claims as barred by the statute of frauds, but held the trial court erred in dismissing the unjust enrichment claim on statute-of-frauds grounds.
The appellate court reversed only as to the unjust enrichment count (remanding for further proceedings as to that claim) and affirmed in all other respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fiduciary duty, FDUTPA, statutory real-estate claims, and IIED survived motion to dismiss	Jesters asserted these causes of action against Pawley	Pawley sought dismissal	Court affirmed dismissal of these claims (no further discussion)
Whether negligent misrepresentation, fraud, rescission, and fraud in the inducement are barred by the statute of frauds	Jesters argued claims were cognizable despite lack of a written agreement	Pawley argued the statute of frauds (§725.01) bars these contract-related claims	Court held these claims are barred by the statute of frauds and affirmed dismissal
Whether unjust enrichment is barred by the statute of frauds	Jesters maintained unjust enrichment is an equitable claim not subject to statute-of-frauds bar	Pawley argued the statute of frauds barred the unjust enrichment claim	Court held the statute of frauds does not bar unjust enrichment; reversed dismissal and remanded
Whether other defenses or factual issues justify dismissal of unjust enrichment at pleading stage	Jesters argued such defenses require factual development and cannot be resolved on a 4-corners motion	Pawley raised alternative defenses and contract-based arguments relying on materials beyond the complaint	Court held those arguments invoked matters beyond the complaint and factual disputes unsuited to a motion to dismiss; rejected them at this stage

Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953) (statute of frauds principles)
India Am. Trading Co. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (statute-of-frauds application to fraud/related claims)
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (statute of frauds precedent)
Kolski ex rel. Kolski v. Kolski, 731 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (unjust enrichment not barred by statute of frauds)
Brace v. Comfort, 2 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (unjust enrichment treated as independent equitable claim)
Santiago v. Mauna Loa Inv., LLC, 189 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2016) (the four-corners rule for motions to dismiss)