UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION a/s/o MELANIE MANZO-PIANELLI v. DALLAS AARON ROBINSON, ESQ., as Curator/Administrator Ad Litem of the ESTATE OF NEIL SEIDEN ( 2023 )

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION a/s/o
MELANIE MANZO-PIANELLI,
Appellant,
v.
DALLAS AARON ROBINSON, ESQ.,
as Curator/Administrator Ad Litem of the ESTATE OF NEIL SEIDEN,
Appellee.
No. 4D21-2518
[January 25, 2023]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE09-
057134.
Charles M-P George of Law Offices of Charles M-P George, Coral Gables,
and Daniel M. Margrey of Wadsworth, Margrey & Dixon, Miami, for
appellant.
Jacqueline G. Emanuel of Knoerr & Emanuel, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,
for appellee.
GERBER, J.
United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) appeals from the
circuit court’s final judgment dismissing with prejudice USAA’s
subrogation action against the Estate of Neil Seiden (“Seiden”). USAA
primarily argues that the circuit court erred in looking beyond the four
corners of USAA’s amended subrogation complaint in order to dismiss
USAA’s action on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law
of the case. Applying de novo review, we agree with this argument. See
Norwich v. Glob. Fin. Assocs., LLC, 882 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
(“We review a final order dismissing a complaint with prejudice de novo.”).
Therefore, we reverse the final judgment.
“The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the
complaint. The trial court may not look beyond the four corners of a
complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss.” Id. (internal citation
omitted).
Here, the four corners of USAA’s amended subrogation complaint did
not allege the facts upon which the res judicata, collateral estoppel, and
law of the case arguments were based. Thus, the circuit court’s
consideration of those facts as the grounds to dismiss USAA’s action was
error. As our sister court held in Newberry Square Florida Laundromat,
LLC v. Jim’s Coin Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., 296 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2020):
An affirmative defense cannot be raised by a motion to
dismiss if the motion requires the court “to consider matters
outside the four corners of the complaint.” Attias v. Faroy
Realty Co., 609 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see also
Williams v. Gaffin Indus. Servs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 1027, 1029
(Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (observing that “‘[e]ven a relatively
straightforward affirmative defense, such as one based upon
the statute of limitations, is not a basis for dismissal unless
the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive
applicability of the defense’” (citation omitted)). Or, stated
differently, “[a] motion to dismiss should not be granted on
the basis of ... defenses unless the ... defenses appear on the
face of the pleading.” Mettler, Inc. v. Ellen Tracy, Inc., 648 So.
2d 253, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (alteration added). It follows
then that if “the basis for res judicata or collateral estoppel
does not appear on the face of the complaint, those grounds
cannot be determined by way of a motion to dismiss.” Garnac
Grain Co. v. Mejia, 962 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Id. at 589. See also Norwich, 882 So. 2d at 537 (“While the defenses of res
judicata and collateral estoppel may be resolved through a motion for
summary judgment, the trial court erred when it ventured outside the four
corners of the complaint … and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”);
Garnac Grain Co., 962 So. 2d at 410 (“[W]here, as here, the basis for res
judicata or collateral estoppel does not appear on the face of the complaint,
those grounds cannot be determined by way of a motion to dismiss.”).
Although USAA’s appeal has raised four other arguments, we are
constrained from considering those arguments, as each would require us
to look beyond the four corners of USAA’s complaint, which we cannot do,
as explained above. Our inability to consider those arguments should not
be interpreted by the parties or the circuit court as any comment on
whether any of those arguments are meritorious.
2
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
3