A Advocates & Attorneys of Kennedy Law Group, Kennedy Law Group v. Swope, Swope, Rodante, P. A.

── A Advocates & Attorneys of Kennedy Law Group, Kennedy Law Group v. Swope, Swope, Rodante, P. A. ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT A ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS OF KENNEDY LAW GROUP a/k/a KENNEDY LAW GROUP, Appellant, v. VICKI S. UITERWYK; DALE SWOPE; and SWOPE, RODANTE, P.A., Appellees. No. 2D2025-1242 May 29, 2026 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, Judge. Joshua S. Widlansky of Padula Bennardo Levine, LLP, Boca Raton, for Appellant. Robert M. Klein of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, Miami, for Appellee, Vicki S. Uiterwyk. No appearance for remaining Appellees. SMITH, Judge.  Appellant A Advocates & Attorneys of Kennedy Law Group a/k/a Kennedy Law Group challenges the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice its complaint for tortious interference against Appellee Vicki S. Uiterwyk, where the trial court considered matters beyond the four corners of the complaint. Because in granting the dismissal with prejudice the trial court relied on information and an affirmative defense that did not appear on the face of the complaint, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Kennedy Law Group filed a complaint alleging two counts of tortious interference with a contractual and/or business relationship against Dale Swope and Swope, Rodante, P.A. (collectively Swope), and Mrs. Uiterwyk; the complaint alleged that Swope and Mrs. Uiterwyk's actions interfered with Kennedy Law Group's referral and contingency agreements. Kennedy Law Group alleged that it referred hundreds of Engle1-progeny tobacco litigation cases to Mrs. Uiterwyk's husband's firm, Hendrik Uiterwyk, P.A., on a contingency fee basis through which Kennedy Law Group was entitled to twenty-five percent of any recovery.2 The complaint further alleged that Mrs. Uiterwyk's husband suffered a stroke and was unable to practice law, eventually dying in December 2020, and that Mrs. Uiterwyk took over administrative duties for her husband's firm while he was incapacitated, including looking into selling the firm's Engle cases, the personal injury side of the firm, or the firm as a whole. Mrs. Uiterwyk consulted Swope for assistance with the Engle cases and her husband's firm affairs. 1 Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). 2 The complaint only attached one contingency fee agreement with one client. 2  Ultimately the complaint alleged that Swope and Mrs. Uiterwyk "gave away" Engle cases to other firms without conferring with Kennedy Law Group and either transferred, dismissed, or terminated representation in those cases, and sold Hendrik Uiterwyk, P.A., to two other attorneys. Pursuant to her answer and affirmative defenses, Mrs. Uiterwyk alleged that her actions were justified and privileged, that they were "undertaken to safeguard or promote [her] preexisting financial or economic interests," and thus, that she was immune from liability. Kennedy Law Group submitted its reply denying and demanding proof of Mrs. Uiterwyk's affirmative defenses. A short time later, Mrs. Uiterwyk moved to dismiss the complaint based in part upon her defenses, including that she was immune from liability because her actions were justified and privileged, not malicious. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court inquired whether there was some documentation that established Mrs. Uiterwyk's authority to act on her husband's behalf. When Mrs. Uiterwyk indicated that her husband had executed a durable power of attorney appointing her as his attorney-in-fact, the trial court continued the hearing for Mrs. Uiterwyk to provide those documents. Mrs. Uiterwyk filed the durable power of attorney along with a letter of administration, and without further hearing, the