## Facts

- Turkey Creek, Inc. developed and sold residential land in a planned unit development (PUD) governed by recorded covenants and association bylaws.
- In 1981–1982, disputes arose between Turkey Creek and certain homeowners about regulation and operation of the PUD.
- The homeowners organized an ad hoc committee and filed a lawsuit against Turkey Creek seeking declaratory relief and damages related to the developer’s operation of the PUD.
- Turkey Creek prevailed in the homeowners’ suit, obtaining a final judgment in its favor and later a judgment taxing costs of $5,611.50.
- After the first case ended, Turkey Creek sued the homeowners for slander of title, malicious prosecution, tortious interference (contract and business relationship), and conspiracy.
- Turkey Creek alleged the homeowners knowingly distributed false information that PUD land was in “distress” and had unmarketable or impaired title, including communications to zoning officials that allegedly delayed or prevented rezoning approvals.

## Issues

1. Whether Turkey Creek’s recovery of taxable costs in the first action barred a later malicious prosecution claim under an election-of-remedies theory.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently stated claims for tortious interference and civil conspiracy where the alleged conduct included communications to government zoning officials and other petitioning-related activity.
3. Whether the slander-of-title claim was a compulsory counterclaim that had to be asserted in the homeowners’ earlier declaratory-judgment action.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court approved the appellate reversal of the trial court’s dismissal and allowed Turkey Creek’s tort action to proceed.
- Recovery of costs in the earlier litigation did not bar a subsequent malicious prosecution action seeking distinct damages.
- The complaint adequately pleaded tortious interference and civil conspiracy; First Amendment and petitioning defenses did not warrant dismissal at the pleading stage.
- The slander-of-title claim was not a compulsory counterclaim under the logical-relationship test because it was based on different conduct, proof, and damages than the earlier declaratory action.
- The court disapproved a contrary district court decision to the extent it conflicted with this analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing party’s taxation of costs in prior litigation does not, by itself, constitute an election of remedies that forecloses a later malicious prosecution claim for damages not recoverable as costs.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true; alleged intentional dissemination of false statements and intentional interference may state tort claims notwithstanding anticipated privilege defenses.
- Courts need not impose an extra, freestanding “sham” petitioning prerequisite at the pleading stage where existing tort doctrines (including privilege and its abuse) address constitutional petitioning concerns.
- A claim is a compulsory counterclaim only if it bears a logical relationship to the opposing party’s claim; tort claims based on separate communications to third parties and distinct injuries may be permissive rather than compulsory.

## Conclusion

The court held that Turkey Creek could pursue malicious prosecution and related tort claims despite having recovered costs in the earlier suit, and that its slander-of-title claim was not waived as a compulsory counterclaim, so dismissal at the pleading stage was improper.


Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992)