HILTON WIENER, as Beneficiary of LAND TRUST 2928-55 v. GOLEX PROPERTIES, LLC and ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    HILTON WIENER, as beneficiary of LAND TRUST 2928-55,
    Appellant,
    v.
    GOLEX PROPERTIES, LLC, and ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ,
    Appellees.
    No. 4D21-998
    [December 1, 2021]
    Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
    Beach County; Marni A. Bryson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CC-
    010872XXXXSB.
    Hilton Wiener, Boca Raton, pro se.
    Kenyetta N. Alexander and Mark R. Osherow of Osherow, PLLC, Boca
    Raton, for appellees.
    KUNTZ, J.
    Hilton Wiener, as beneficiary of a land trust, filed a complaint against
    Golex Properties, LLC, and Adrian Rodriguez for breach of a purchase and
    sale agreement. The county court dismissed Wiener’s complaint with
    prejudice. The court also denied Wiener’s motion to disqualify counsel for
    Golex and Rodriguez. Wiener appeals both orders.
    We affirm the order denying the motion to disqualify counsel without
    discussion. Our affirmance on that issue is without prejudice to the
    county court’s right to reconsider the order if it becomes apparent that
    counsel is a necessary witness.
    But we reverse the court’s order dismissing the complaint with
    prejudice. The county court dismissed Rodriguez as a party after
    concluding that he executed the purchase and sale agreement as Golex’s
    agent and was therefore not a party to the agreement. The court dismissed
    Golex based on its conclusion that it could not “ignore a previously agreed
    upon liquidated damages provision because it is later not advantageous.”
    Wiener argues that the court erred when it denied his request to amend
    the complaint. Generally, he states that he could amend the complaint
    and seek to nullify the liquidated damages provision and pierce the
    corporate veil.
    We agree. Leave of court to amend a pleading “shall be given freely
    when justice so requires.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a); see also Ins. Concepts
    and Design, Inc. v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 
    785 So. 2d 1232
    , 1236 (Fla. 4th
    DCA 2001) (citation omitted) (“While the granting of motions to dismiss
    with prejudice is generally not favored, it is proper if the pleading cannot
    be amended to state a cause of action.”).
    We reverse the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On
    remand, the court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice and allow
    Wiener the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
    GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.
    *         *         *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-0998

Filed Date: 12/1/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/1/2021