Reed v. Hart
680 So. 2d 460
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1996
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from the dismissal of Appellants’ second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm the dismissal of the contract counts (counts I — III) as barred by the statute of frauds.

However, the counts alleging defamation (count IV) and intentional interference with a contractual relationship (count V) should not have been dismissed. Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812, 814 *461(Fla.1994); Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844, 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Young v. Pottinger, 340 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (citing, inter alia, Prosser on Torts § 106, at 725-26 (2d ed. 1955)); cf. Dwight v. Tobin, 947 F.2d 455, 460 (11th Cir.1991).

We therefore affirm the dismissal of the contract counts (counts I — III), but reverse the dismissal of the defamation and intentional interference counts (counts IV and V), and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.