Simon v. Celebration Co. - 883 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Rule:

A complaint for fraud must specifically allege sufficient ultimate facts on each element of the claim.

Facts:

The student was evaluated and found eligible to receive special learning disability services. However, after enrolling both of their children in the town's school, the parents became dissatisfied with the learning experience provided. Appellants, Anton Simon, his sister Ana, and his parents Paul and Connie, appealed the final orders entered by the trial court dismissing their lawsuit containing five-count complaints against the appellees, The Celebration Company, and various educational institutions. Appellants sued for declaratory relief and in tort, alleging that their family had been damaged because they had relocated to The Town of Celebration developed by the appellee based upon misrepresentations about its school that it provided its students with a quality education based upon a time-tested and successful curriculum known as best practices. The court affirmed in part and reverse in part concluding that the trial court erred in dismissing some but not all counts of the appellant’s complaint.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in its decision on all counts of the appellant’s complaint? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing some but not all counts of the appellant’s complaint, which the court affirmed in part and reverse in part. On Count I, the appellant alleged a claim against the appellee county school board based on Fla. Stat. ch. 230.23(4)(m)5 (1997), but the court found that the trial court erred in ruling that the complaint conclusively established that the statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367 barred the count. As to count II, the court held that the trial court properly concluded that no private cause of action existed under Fla. Const. art. IX, § 1 for the enforcement of its provisions against individual school boards. On Counts III and IV alleged fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The court ruled that although inartfully drafted, the appellants' complaint sought to allege claims for fraud and misrepresentation, not educational malpractice. However, the complaint failed to allege the false representations with sufficient specificity and failed to allege cognizable fraud damages. On Count V, since the appellants have not raised any challenge to the trial court's dismissal to this count. Therefore, that ruling is affirmed.