County
Civil Court: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Dismissal – trial court
erred in dismissing breach of contract action by finding that the credit card
assignment had to be attached to the complaint – the Rules of Civil Procedure
do not require that an assignment be attached to complaint – Trawick’s explains
that an assignment is not a document that is a prerequisite to filing a breach
of contract action – Dismissal reversed.
PRA, III, LLC v. Little,
Appeal No. 05-0005AP-88A (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. July 12, 2005).
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE
DIVISION
PRA III, LLC,
Appellant,
vs. Appeal No. 05-0005AP-88A
UCN522005AP000005XXXXCV
MONA LITTLE,
Appellee.
_________________________________________/
Appeal from Dismissal
Pinellas County Court
Judge Robert Michael
Leslie M. Schneider, Esquire
Attorney for Appellant
H. Michael Evans, Esquire
Attorney for Appellee
ORDER
AND OPINION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal,
filed by PRA III, LLC (PRA), from the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, entered December 21, 2004, in favor of Mona
Little (Little). Upon review of the Initial
Brief,[1]
the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court reverses the trial
court’s ruling as set forth below.
The
record shows that the PRA filed a Complaint for Damages against Little seeking
to recover a credit card debt in the principal sum of $14,971.43, pursuant to a
credit card agreement between Little and MBNA American Bank (MBNA). PRA alleged that it was the holder and owner
of the debt pursuant to an assignment from the original lender, MBNA. Attached to the Complaint were two exhibits, the
MBNA credit card agreement and a MBNA credit card statement, with a closing
date of June 8, 2000, showing a charge-off adjustment of $14,971.43, leaving a
zero balance.
Little
moved to dismiss the Complaint for PRA’s failure to attach a copy of the
assignment pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.130. In response, PRA filed an Affidavit of
Assignment, signed by MBNA’s Charge-Off Sales Coordinator, stating that the
amount of $14,971.43, had been assigned from MBNA to Portfolio Recovery
Associates on May 25, 2001. The trial
court entered, on March 24, 2004, its Order of Dismissal finding that
attachment of the assignment was necessary to establish PRA’s standing to file
suit against Little. PRA filed an
Amended Complaint and a Second Amended Complaint, with essentially the same
allegations and exhibits attached, resulting in the dismissal the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice.[2]
Before
this Court, PRA argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its cause of
action by finding that the assignment had to be attached to the complaint
pursuant to Rule 1.130(a). This Court
agrees. Rule 1.130(a) provides that “[a]ll
bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which
action may be brought or defense made . . . shall be incorporated in or
attached to the pleading.” The Rule does
not state that an assignment must be attached to a complaint nor is there case law
that requires such an attachment pursuant to Rule 1.130(a).
Rather,
as explained by H. Trawick, Trawick of Florida Practice and Procedure,
§ 6 -15: “Documents relating to the right to bring the
action or that are prerequisites to liability are not required. In this category are letters of
administration, assignments of contracts,
mortgages, judgments and other instruments unless a party to the assignment is
suing for breach of the assignment .
. . ” (emphasis added); see also Bradenton
Spine and Joint Center, Inc. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 10 Fla. L.
Weekly Supp. 544b (Fla. Sarasota Cty.
Ct.)(denying motion to dismiss for failure to attachment copy of assignment as
cause of action was based on breach of the insurance contract, not breach of
the assignment).[3] Accordingly, since PRA was suing for breach
of the credit card agreement, not breach of the assignment, it was not required
to attach a copy of the assignment to withstand a motion to dismiss.
The Court notes that the trial court cited
two decisions as examples of why attachment of the assignment to a complaint is
necessary to determine the validity of a complaint, Morales v. All Right
Miami, Inc., 755 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), and Florida Coast
Enterprises v. Rosen, 116 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). In Morales, the Third District Court
of Appeal held that the trial court erred in not setting aside the Plaintiff’s
default judgment where the complaint and exhibits, upon which the default was
entered, demonstrated that the Plaintiff was not a payee of the restitution
order sought to be enforced against the Defendant. In Florida Coast Enterprises, the
Second District Court of Appeal concluded that the cause of action should have
been dismissed as the attached purported assignment did not expressly assign
rights to the Plaintiffs. While these
cases support the well-settled law that when attached exhibits contradict the
allegations of the complaint, the plain meaning of the exhibits control,[4]
they do not hold that attachment of an assignment to a complaint is necessary
to maintain a cause of action, such as a breach of contract complaint, as
presented in this case.
Therefore,
it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice is
reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for action consistent
with this Order and Opinion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida this ________ day of June 2005.
________________________________
JOHN
A. SCHAEFER
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
_______________________________ ______________________________
LAUREN
LAUGHLIN JAMES
CASE
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit
Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Judge Robert Michael
Leslie M. Schneider, Esquire
7765 S.W. 87th Avenue, # 101
Miami, FL 33173
H. Michael Evans, Esquire
2123 N.E. Coachman Road, Suite A
Clearwater, FL 33765
[1] The Court notes that Little failed to file an Answer Brief even after being directed to do so. However, the Court cannot not reverse the trial court based solely on Little’s failure to file an Answer Brief and must review this case on the merits of the Initial Brief and the appellate record. See e.g. State, Board of Optometry v. Florida Society of Opthalmology, 538 So.2d 878, 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(explaining that appellate court must review case on the merits even when no answer brief is filed).
[2] As set for in the order of dismissal, entered December 21, 2004, PRA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Portfolio Recovery Associates. This fact is undisputed in the record.
[3] While not controlling, the Court finds this county court case informative given the lack of appellate case law on this issue.
[4] See e.g. Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 772 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 2000).