Summary
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed an order dismissing KAC 2021-1, LLC’s complaint alleging violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act arising from the posting of a residential eviction notice. The court held that the trial court addressed issues not raised in the motion to dismiss and improperly determined that amendment would be futile. The case was remanded to allow KAC an opportunity to amend its complaint.
Holdings
- The trial court erred by resolving the case on issues that Hudson did not raise in its motion to dismiss, including whether Hudson was an exempted debt collector under section 559.55(7), Florida Statutes.
- The trial court should have allowed KAC to amend its complaint because the record did not establish that amendment was clearly futile.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint based on issues that Hudson had not raised in its motion to dismiss.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying KAC leave to amend its complaint on the ground that amendment would be futile.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (7)
- Locker v. United Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., 46 So. 3d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)(followed)
- Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So. 3d 1229, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)(followed)
- New River Yachting Center, Inc. v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)(followed)
- Osborne v. Delta Maintenance & Welding, 365 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)(followed)
- NextGen Restoration, Inc. v. Citizens Property Insurance, 126 So. 3d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)(followed)
- Reynolds v. Gables Residential Services, Inc., 428 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2006)(persuasive analogy)
- Bennett v. Walton County, 174 So. 3d 386, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (Makar, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)(persuasive analogy)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…