Case Name: CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Tropical Park, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, an agency of the State of Florida; Investment Corporation of Palm Beach, a Florida corporation; and Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-03-10
Citations: 838 So. 2d 1241
Docket Number: No. 1D02-1244
Parties: CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Tropical Park, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, an agency of the State of Florida; Investment Corporation of Palm Beach, a Florida corporation; and Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Judges: BOOTH, WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 838
Pages: 1241–1242

Head Matter:
CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Tropical Park, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, an agency of the State of Florida; Investment Corporation of Palm Beach, a Florida corporation; and Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
No. 1D02-1244.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 10, 2003.
Wilbur E. Brewton, Kelly B. Plante and Tana D. Storey of Brewton, Plante & Plante, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Harold F.X. Purnell of Rutledge, Ece-nia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Daytona Beach Kennel Club.
Robert W. Pass and E. Kelly Bittick, Jr., of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Investment Corporation of Palm Beach.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of a final order dismissing their complaint with prejudice, as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Because we conclude that neither the affirmative defense of res judicata nor that of collateral estoppel is conclusively demonstrated within the four corners of the complaint, we hold that it was error to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as barred by either defense. See, e.g., Liv ingston v. Spires, 481 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur.