Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Plaintiff,
V.
CASE NO.: 502017CA000637XXXXMB AF
ARPAD TOTH
Pro se
V.
ANIKO VIGI
Third-Party Defendant,
Third-Party Counter Plaintiff
_____________________________/
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Arpad Toth in Propria Persona as undersigned, (hereinafter
“Arpad Toth”) files this Motion to Dismiss the “Third-Party Counterclaim” filed by Third-Party
Defendant and Third-Party Counter Plaintiff, Aniko Vigi (“Aniko Vigi”) for failure to state a
cause of action and in support thereof states as follows:
1|Page
2) The so-called Third-Party Counterclaim” alleges what appears to be a claim for rescission
of a contract. See: Attached Exhibit “A”
3) The following factors must appear in a complaint to state a cause of action for rescission
of a contract:
(4) That the party seeking rescission has rescinded the contract and notified the other party to
the contract of such rescission.
(5) If the moving party has received benefits from the contract, he should further allege an
offer to restore these benefits to the party furnishing them, if restoration is possible;
(6) Lastly, that the moving party has no adequate remedy at law.
(See: Billian v. Mobil Corp., 710 So. 2d 991 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 1998)
4) The “Third-Party Counterclaim” fails to allege that Aniko Vigi rescinded the contract and
that she has notified Arpad Toth of such rescission.
5) The “Third-Party Counterclaim” fails to allege that Aniko Vigi has no adequate remedy
at law.
7) On October 19, 2017, Aniko Vigi by and through her attorney filed a reply to Arpad
Toth’s “Amended Affirmative Defenses” See: Attached Exhibit “B”
2|Page
8) In paragraph 4, she claimed that rescission of Exhibit “A” would be inequitable. In her
“Third-Party Counterclaim” she claims that rescission of Exhibit “A” would be equitable.
9) Aniko Vigi must be prevented to making mockery of justice by taking totally inconsistent
position as to Exhibit “A”. Her “Third-Party Counterclaim” is barred by the doctrine of
judicial estoppel. (See: Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1066 - Fla: Supreme
Court 2001.)
Wherefore, Arpad Toth prays this Honorable Court to dismiss the Third-Party Counterclaim
with prejudice and for an award of all costs and expenses for defending the “Third-Party
Counterclaim”.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that the copy of the foregoing has been furnished by E-Mail to: Peter J. Snyder,
P.A. at psnyder@lawinboca.com and eService@lawinboca.com , on December 23, 2017.
Arpad Toth
3|Page