Case Name: George W. THOMAS, et al., Appellants, v. Hort A. SOPER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen A. Calder, et al., Appellees; George W. THOMAS, Helen A. Thomas, his wife, Sidney S. Chamandy, Agnes T. Chamandy, his wife, Doris Spielberg, a widow, et al., Appellants, v. Hort A. SOPER, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-03-06
Citations: 464 So. 2d 255
Docket Number: Nos. 84-141, 84-434
Parties: George W. THOMAS, et al., Appellants, v. Hort A. SOPER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen A. Calder, et al., Appellees. George W. THOMAS, Helen A. Thomas, his wife, Sidney S. Chamandy, Agnes T. Chamandy, his wife, Doris Spielberg, a widow, et al., Appellants, v. Hort A. SOPER, et al., Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 464
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
George W. THOMAS, et al., Appellants, v. Hort A. SOPER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen A. Calder, et al., Appellees. George W. THOMAS, Helen A. Thomas, his wife, Sidney S. Chamandy, Agnes T. Chamandy, his wife, Doris Spielberg, a widow, et al., Appellants, v. Hort A. SOPER, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 84-141, 84-434.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 6, 1985.
Harvie S. DuVal of Greenfield & DuVal, North Miami, for appellants.
J. Cameron Story, III of McCune, Hiaa-sen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Hort A. Soper, et al.
Curtin R. Coleman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Campanelli Industries, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Case No. 84-141 is hereby dismissed. In case No. 84-434 we reverse the trial court's order dismissing the appellants' action with prejudice. In our view the pleadings of appellants, while inartfully drawn and including allegations as to statutes upon which appellants cannot rely, stated a cause of action for common-law uncon-scionability as to the lease transactions in question. See Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We reject appellees' contention that the action was properly dismissed because of the existence of defenses such as laches, statute of limitations, subsequent assignments and other such defensive matters raised by the appellees. While those matters may constitute valid defenses, an issue we do not decide or comment upon, we do not believe they constituted proper grounds for granting the motion to dismiss the pleadings.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings in accord herewith.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.