Case Name: ESTATE OF Anthony MARTINEZ, Deceased, by and Through Co-Personal Representatives, Paul COWAN and Sheldon Rosenthal and Andres Martinez, Sr. and Jessica Hernandez, Appellants, v. POST BUCKLEY SCHUH JERNIGAN, INC., Grossman Holdings Limited, Bleeman Holdings Limited, and Homestead Properties, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-08-11
Citations: 881 So. 2d 636
Docket Number: No. 3D03-2407
Parties: ESTATE OF Anthony MARTINEZ, Deceased, by and Through Co-Personal Representatives, Paul COWAN and Sheldon Rosenthal and Andres Martinez, Sr. and Jessica Hernandez, Appellants, v. POST BUCKLEY SCHUH JERNIGAN, INC., Grossman Holdings Limited, Bleeman Holdings Limited, and Homestead Properties, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 881
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
ESTATE OF Anthony MARTINEZ, Deceased, by and Through Co-Personal Representatives, Paul COWAN and Sheldon Rosenthal and Andres Martinez, Sr. and Jessica Hernandez, Appellants, v. POST BUCKLEY SCHUH JERNIGAN, INC., Grossman Holdings Limited, Bleeman Holdings Limited, and Homestead Properties, Appellees.
No. 3D03-2407.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 11, 2004.
Feiler, Leach McCarron and Michael B. Feiler, Coral Gables; and Martin Leach, Miami, for appellants.
Patrick C. Barthet, Miami, and Alexander E. Barthet; Thornton, Davis & Fein and Holly S. Harvey, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from the dismissal of an amended complaint in a child drowning-wrongful death case for failure to state a cause of action, the order under review is vacated and the cause remanded for a determination by the trial court as to whether the building permit and other pertinent documents relating to the construction and maintenance of the lake in which the child drowned create a mandatory slope requirement (which the plaintiffs allege the appellees violated). If the court so finds, or if a jury question is presented on the issue, the complaint should not be dismissed. See Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes, Inc., 629 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So.2d 979 (Fla.1994). If, as a matter of law, there is no such mandatory requirement, the motion to dismiss the complaint should again be granted. See Longmore v. Saga Bay Property Owners Ass'n, 868 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Kaweblum v. Thorn-hill Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 801 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Vacated, remanded with directions.