Preview
Filing # 195057965 E-Filed 03/28/2024 04:23:43 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2024-CA-73
J & J STORAGE & WAREHOUSE,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
JW WEAPONRY & OUTDOORS, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant JW Weaponry & Outdoors, Inc., through undersigned counsel,
pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140, moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for
failure to state a cause of action and in support thereof shows as follows:
1. Plaintiff brought a two-count complaint alleging a claim for promissory
estoppel (Count I) and seeking a declaratory action (Count II) arising out of a
dispute between Plaintiff and its neighboring property owner, Defendant JW
Weaponry & Outdoors, Inc. related to the owners’ inability to reach an agreement
regarding an easement across Defendant’s property for water runoff from
Plaintiffs property.
2. As it relates to this motion, it is significant that the Complaint does not
allege that there was ever a valid written agreement between the parties. Rather,
the sum of Plaintiffs allegations is that while it is believed that at one time there
was an oral agreement between the respective parties’ predecessors in title to
Electronically Filed Columbia Case # 24000073CAAXMK 03/28/2024 04:23:43 PM
allow for such runoff, there was no formal grant of an easement or other
recognition of any agreement between the parties to this litigation or their
respective predecessors in title. See Complaint at { 7-11. Thereafter, it is alleged
that on two separate occasions, Plaintiff sent Defendant a proposed easement
for review and consideration, which Defendant in turn forwarded to an attorney
for review and approval. See Complaint at § 12-14, 19-24. Finally, it is alleged
that Defendant, through its President, intended to sign the proposed easement
upon approval of the proposed easement by legal counsel. Complaint at ¥ 14,
23-24 and 26. However, the Complaint is devoid of any allegations that
Defendant ever signed an easement or other such agreement so as to result ina
written agreement between the parties.
3. In Count I, Plaintiff purports to allege a cause of action for promissory
estoppel, in essence, asking this Cout to require “Defendant to execute an
easement over and across Defendant’s real property allowing Plaintiff to
discharge surface water runoff into a pond on Defendant’s real property in
Columbia County, Florida.” Complaint at § 29. Similarly, in Count II, seeking
declaratory relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has an easement implied
by pre-existing use across Defendant’s real property.” Complaint at § 35
4. An easement constitutes an interest in land and is subject to the
statute of frauds. Lodestar Tower N. Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Television
Broadcasting, 665 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
5. It is clear from the allegations of the Complaint that Plaintiff does not
and has never had a written easement which satisfies the statute of frauds and
is now asking this Court to impose as relief, what it could not obtain for itself: a
written easement.
6. Promissory estoppel cannot be used to recast a claim for breach of an
oral agreement, e.g. the alleged oral agreement to execute the easement proposed
by Plaintiff, when a written agreement is required in order to satisfy the statute
of frauds. See Stamer v. Free Fly, Inc., 277 So. 3d 179, 182 (Fla. Sth DCA 2019)
(reversing trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee on a claim for promissory
estoppel where “Florida law is clear that promissory estoppel is not an exception
to the statute of frauds.”)
7. Count Il of the Complaint purports to seek a declaratory judgment by
the Court. Declaratory judgments are governed by Chapter 86, Florida Statutes.
Section 86.021 outlines the requirements for a declaratory action and the power
of the courts in resolving same. Specifically, this section states:
Any person claiming to be interested or who may be in doubt about
his or her rights under a deed, will, contract, or other article,
memorandum of instrument in writing or whose rights, status, or
other equitable or legal relations are affected by a statute or any
regulation made under statutory authority, or by municipal
ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article,
memorandum or instrument in writing may have determined any
question of construction or validity arising under such statute,
regulation, municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or
other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing, or any part
thereof, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other equitable
or legal relations thereunder.
(emphasis added).
8. A motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment is not a
motion on the merits. Rather it is a motion only to determine whether the
plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights, not to whether it is entitled to a
declaration its favor. Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA
2006).
9. In support of its claim for declaratory relief, Plaintiff does not allege that
it is in doubt of its rights under a written agreement or document. Rather,
Plaintiff asks the Court to find that it has an easement implied by pre-existing
use across Defendant’s real property, prior to both parties’ ownership of their
respective parcels. See Complaint at § 35-37. As Plaintiff does not ask this
Court to construe its rights under a written agreement with the Defendant,
Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief and this count
should be dismissed. Further, in asking this Court to enforce a pre-existing oral
agreement for an easement under the guise of “declaratory relief,” Plaintiff is
ignoring the requirements of Florida law which require that an easement satisfy
the statute of frauds. Lodestar Tower N. Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Television
Broadcasting, 665 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See Best v. Best, No.
2018-CA-000058, 2018 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 5181 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Sept. 5, 2018)
(holding that an easement is subject to the statute of frauds and that the Florida
Supreme Court has only recognized two instances in which an easement will be
implied (neither of which apply in the present case)).
DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
By s/Meagan L. Logan
Meagan L. Logan
Florida Bar No.: 18062
177 NW Madison Street
4
Lake City, FL 32055
(386) 752-5511 telephone
meagan@douglasanddouglas.law
Counsel for Defendant
JW Weaponry & Outdoors, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFIED that on this 28th day of March, 2024, I sent a true
and correct copy of the forgoing to the following counsel of record using the
Florida court’s e-filing portal:
Ralph R. Deas, Esq.
227 SE Hernando Avenue
Lake City, FL 32025
ralphdeas@deaslawoffice.com
s/ Meagan L. Logan
Attorney
Preview
Filing # 195057965 E-Filed 03/28/2024 04:23:43 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2024-CA-73 J & J STORAGE & WAREHOUSE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. JW WEAPONRY & OUTDOORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant JW Weaponry & Outdoors, Inc., through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140, moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a cause of action and in support thereof shows as follows: 1. Plaintiff brought a two-count complaint alleging a claim for promissory estoppel (Count I) and seeking a declaratory action (Count II) arising out of a dispute between Plaintiff and its neighboring property owner, Defendant JW Weaponry & Outdoors, Inc. related to the owners’ inability to reach an agreement regarding an easement across Defendant’s property for water runoff from Plaintiffs property. 2. As it relates to this motion, it is significant that the Complaint does not allege that there was ever a valid written agreement between the parties. Rather, the sum of Plaintiffs allegations is that while it is believed that at one time there was an oral agreement between the respective parties’ predecessors in title to Electronically Filed Columbia Case # 24000073CAAXMK 03/28/2024 04:23:43 PM allow for such runoff, there was no formal grant of an easement or other recognition of any agreement between the parties to this litigation or their respective predecessors in title. See Complaint at { 7-11. Thereafter, it is alleged that on two separate occasions, Plaintiff sent Defendant a proposed easement for review and consideration, which Defendant in turn forwarded to an attorney for review and approval. See Complaint at § 12-14, 19-24. Finally, it is alleged that Defendant, through its President, intended to sign the proposed easement upon approval of the proposed easement by legal counsel. Complaint at ¥ 14, 23-24 and 26. However, the Complaint is devoid of any allegations that Defendant ever signed an easement or other such agreement so as to result ina written agreement between the parties. 3. In Count I, Plaintiff purports to allege a cause of action for promissory estoppel, in essence, asking this Cout to require “Defendant to execute an easement over and across Defendant’s real property allowing Plaintiff to discharge surface water runoff into a pond on Defendant’s real property in Columbia County, Florida.” Complaint at § 29. Similarly, in Count II, seeking declaratory relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has an easement implied by pre-existing use across Defendant’s real property.” Complaint at § 35 4. An easement constitutes an interest in land and is subject to the statute of frauds. Lodestar Tower N. Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Television Broadcasting, 665 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 5. It is clear from the allegations of the Complaint that Plaintiff does not and has never had a written easement which satisfies the statute of frauds and is now asking this Court to impose as relief, what it could not obtain for itself: a written easement. 6. Promissory estoppel cannot be used to recast a claim for breach of an oral agreement, e.g. the alleged oral agreement to execute the easement proposed by Plaintiff, when a written agreement is required in order to satisfy the statute of frauds. See Stamer v. Free Fly, Inc., 277 So. 3d 179, 182 (Fla. Sth DCA 2019) (reversing trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee on a claim for promissory estoppel where “Florida law is clear that promissory estoppel is not an exception to the statute of frauds.”) 7. Count Il of the Complaint purports to seek a declaratory judgment by the Court. Declaratory judgments are governed by Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. Section 86.021 outlines the requirements for a declaratory action and the power of the courts in resolving same. Specifically, this section states: Any person claiming to be interested or who may be in doubt about his or her rights under a deed, will, contract, or other article, memorandum of instrument in writing or whose rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations are affected by a statute or any regulation made under statutory authority, or by municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article, memorandum or instrument in writing may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such statute, regulation, municipal ordinance, contract, deed, will, franchise, or other article, memorandum, or instrument in writing, or any part thereof, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other equitable or legal relations thereunder. (emphasis added). 8. A motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment is not a motion on the merits. Rather it is a motion only to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights, not to whether it is entitled to a declaration its favor. Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). 9. In support of its claim for declaratory relief, Plaintiff does not allege that it is in doubt of its rights under a written agreement or document. Rather, Plaintiff asks the Court to find that it has an easement implied by pre-existing use across Defendant’s real property, prior to both parties’ ownership of their respective parcels. See Complaint at § 35-37. As Plaintiff does not ask this Court to construe its rights under a written agreement with the Defendant, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief and this count should be dismissed. Further, in asking this Court to enforce a pre-existing oral agreement for an easement under the guise of “declaratory relief,” Plaintiff is ignoring the requirements of Florida law which require that an easement satisfy the statute of frauds. Lodestar Tower N. Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Television Broadcasting, 665 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See Best v. Best, No. 2018-CA-000058, 2018 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 5181 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Sept. 5, 2018) (holding that an easement is subject to the statute of frauds and that the Florida Supreme Court has only recognized two instances in which an easement will be implied (neither of which apply in the present case)). DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS By s/Meagan L. Logan Meagan L. Logan Florida Bar No.: 18062 177 NW Madison Street 4 Lake City, FL 32055 (386) 752-5511 telephone meagan@douglasanddouglas.law Counsel for Defendant JW Weaponry & Outdoors, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFIED that on this 28th day of March, 2024, I sent a true and correct copy of the forgoing to the following counsel of record using the Florida court’s e-filing portal: Ralph R. Deas, Esq. 227 SE Hernando Avenue Lake City, FL 32025 ralphdeas@deaslawoffice.com s/ Meagan L. Logan Attorney