127 So. 3d 592
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff entered into an oral, month-to-month storage contract for $100/month in 2008; defendant to provide 24/7 security and keep boat free from damage/theft; boat valued at $175,000; plaintiff performed through June 9, 2009; on that date boat stolen due to alleged inadequate security; hull recovered with engines and related wiring missing; boat value reduced to about $36,000; plaintiff sought lost value and damages.
- Defendant moved to dismiss with prejudice on grounds that the contract violated the statute of frauds, lacked consideration, failed to state a cause of action, and plaintiff lacked standing after selling the hull and recovering $36,000 in mitigation.
- Circuit court held a hearing and granted dismissal with prejudice, then awarded attorney’s fees to defendant under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2010).
- Plaintiff appeals, arguing the statute of frauds did not bar the oral contract at the motion-to-dismiss stage; issues of consideration, sufficiency of a breach-of-contract claim, and standing are not appropriately resolved at that stage.
- Court reviews de novo and reverses, finding the contract did not violate the statute of frauds and that the complaint stated a claim with standing; remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion, and reverses the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of frauds applicability at dismissal | Plaintiff contends performance (monthly payments) shows non-fraud status | Contract falls within year-long/performance window under statute | Statute of frauds not violated at dismissal (reversed) |
| Consideration | Contract supported by consideration as plaintiff paid monthly | Lack of consideration | Contract had consideration |
| Sufficiency of breach-of-contract claim | Complaint alleges valid contract, material breach, and damages | Complaint insufficient | Complaint states a breach-of-contract claim |
| Standing | Plaintiff sustained injury from breach despite hull sale and mitigation | Plaintiff lacked standing after sale/mitigation | Plaintiff had standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Fresh Capital Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bridgeport Capital Servs., Inc., 891 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (de novo review of statute-of-frauds dismissal; contract performance can cure fraud issues)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (for motions to dismiss, facts are presumed true and in plaintiff's favor)
- 101 Monument Rd., Inc. v. Delta Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 993 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (full performance removes oral contract from statute of frauds)
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (right result if supported by record; review limited to four corners of complaint)
- Mitleider v. Brier Grieves Agency, Inc., 53 So.3d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (limits of appellate review on dismissal to four corners of complaint)