IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

SKYLER LECSO VIGI, a minor, by ANIKO VIGI,

as natural guardian and next friend,

Plaintiff,
V.
CASE NO.: 502017CA000637XXXXMB AF

ARPAD TOTH
Pro se

Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff

Third-Party Counter Defendant

V.

ANIKO VIGI

Third-Party Defendant,
Third-Party Counter Plaintiff

_____________________________/

MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY COUNTERCLAIM

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) On or about December 5, 2017, Aniko Vigi filed a “Third-Party Counterclaim” against

Arpad Toth.

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:

(1) The character or relationship of the parties;

(2) The making of the contract;

(3) The existence of fraud, mutual mistake, false representations, impossibility of

performance, or other ground for rescission or cancellation;

(4) That the party seeking rescission has rescinded the contract and notified the other party to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4) The “Third-Party Counterclaim” fails to allege that Aniko Vigi rescinded the contract and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.

6) Additionally to the pleading deficiencies of the “Third-Party Counterclaim”, rescission

would be inequitable because the parties could not be returned to their respective position
ante. Restoration is impossible after 3 years, given the fact of the substantial changes in
position of the parties to the underlying contract.

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

6995 NW 5th Ave

Boca Raton, Fl. 33487
Telephone: (561) 573-4250

/s/ Arpad Toth

By: _______________
Lecso1964@Hotmail.com

3|Page