CHESNICK v. DEZER DEVELOPMENT LLC (2019)

This is an appeal from the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of counts II and III of Andrew Chesnick's amended complaint. We affirm the dismissal of count III, civil conspiracy, without further discussion as the parties neither briefed nor argued the issue on appeal. As to count II, breach of personal guarantee, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The purpose of a motion to dismiss is “to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine factual issues.” Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1199 (Fla. 2006). “Unlike a motion for summary judgment, when ruling on a motion to dismiss, ‘[a] court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint in considering the legal sufficiency of the allegations.’ ” Rolle v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., 212 So. 3d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Botelho, D.O., 891 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)). The trial court is precluded from considering the arguments of the parties that extend beyond the pleading. See Lewis v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “All [factual] allegations must be taken as true and any reasonable inferences drawn from the complaint must be construed in favor of the non-moving party.” Minor v. Brunetti, 43 So. 3d 178, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (citing Chodorow v. Porto Vita, Ltd., 954 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). Taking the allegations in the amended complaint as true and viewing the inferences in the light most favorable to Mr. Chesnick, the amended complaint contained sufficient allegations of a breach of guarantee to withstand a motion to dismiss.¹

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Despite our holding, we express no opinion regarding the sufficiency of the breach of guarantee claim to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

PER CURIAM.