Case Name: Bruce E. WALLIS and Kate B. Wallis, Appellants, v. SOUTH FLORIDA SAVINGS BANK and Allegheny Oaks of Florida, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-12-14
Citations: 574 So. 2d 1108
Docket Number: No. 90-00560
Parties: Bruce E. WALLIS and Kate B. Wallis, Appellants, v. SOUTH FLORIDA SAVINGS BANK and Allegheny Oaks of Florida, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: CAMPBELL, A.C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 574
Pages: 1108–1111

Head Matter:
Bruce E. WALLIS and Kate B. Wallis, Appellants, v. SOUTH FLORIDA SAVINGS BANK and Allegheny Oaks of Florida, Inc., Appellees.
No. 90-00560.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 14, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1991.
C. Lawrence Stagg, Margaret D. Mathews, and E. Jeanne Maguire of Stagg, Har dy, Ferguson, Murnaghan & Mathews, P.A., Tampa, for appellants.
Victoria H. Pflug and Richard R. Garland of Dickinson, O’Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, P.A., Sarasota, for appellee Allegheny Oaks of Florida, Inc.
John T. Kolinski and Melanie A. Dernis of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for appellee South Florida Sav. Bank.

Opinion:
HALL, Judge.
The appellants filed suit against numerous parties, including the appellees, South Florida Savings Bank and Allegheny Oaks of Florida, Inc., alleging intentional misrepresentation, failure to disclose, conspiracy, and a right to subrogation.
The trial court found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the appellees. After due consideration of the amended complaint, we agree with the trial court and affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice in all respects, except as to count I filed against South Florida Savings Bank.
As the facts are disputed and this appeal is based on a purely legal issue, we find it unnecessary to include a complete recitation of the facts as alleged in the complaint; however, we find that Count I has sufficient allegations with which to set forth a cause of action against South Florida for intentional misrepresentation. In count I it is alleged that South Florida made a statement it knew to be false with the intent that the appellants rely on it and that the appellants did rely on it and were thereby damaged.
We therefore affirm the order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice as to all counts against Allegheny Oaks of Florida, Inc., and all counts against South Florida Savings Bank, except count I.
We reverse the dismissal of count I against South Florida Savings Bank and remand for further proceedings thereon.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., concurs.
ALTENBERND, J., concurs specially.