Case Name: Don L. REED and Beverly Reed, Appellants, v. Brigham HART, Lita Hart, B and L Hart Enterprises, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-03-11
Citations: 680 So. 2d 460
Docket Number: No. 95-1079
Parties: Don L. REED and Beverly Reed, Appellants, v. Brigham HART, Lita Hart, B and L Hart Enterprises, et al., Appellees.
Judges: BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Don L. REED and Beverly Reed, Appellants, v. Brigham HART, Lita Hart, B and L Hart Enterprises, et al., Appellees.
No. 95-1079.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 11, 1996.
Marie A. Mattox, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Thomas M. Ervin, Jr., and Melissa Fletcher Allaman of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Ervin, Tallahassee, for Appellees Brigham Hart, Lita Hart, B and L Hart Enterprises, Inc., and U Can II, Inc.
E.C. Deeno Kitchen of Kitchen, Judkins, Simpson & High, Tallahassee, for Appellees Barry Joye and Luronda Joye, d/b/a Joye Unlimited.
Mary L. Sweet of Francis & Sweet, Tallahassee, for Appellee Internet Services Corp., Inc.
Larry D. Simpson of Kitchen, Judkins, Simpson & High, Tallahassee, for Appellee Hal Gooch.
Robert L. Hinkle of Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & McArthur, Tallahassee, for Appellee Bill Childers.
J.C. O’Steen, Tallahassee, for Appellees John Reed and Kathy Reed.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the dismissal of Appellants' second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm the dismissal of the contract counts (counts I — III) as barred by the statute of frauds.
However, the counts alleging defamation (count IV) and intentional interference with a contractual relationship (count V) should not have been dismissed. Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812, 814 (Fla.1994); Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So.2d 844, 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Young v. Pottinger, 340 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (citing, inter alia, Prosser on Torts § 106, at 725-26 (2d ed. 1955)); cf. Dwight v. Tobin, 947 F.2d 455, 460 (11th Cir.1991).
We therefore affirm the dismissal of the contract counts (counts I — III), but reverse the dismissal of the defamation and intentional interference counts (counts IV and V), and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.