METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Metropolitan Bank appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of Vanguard Insurance. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the judgment was procedurally improper because it was entered before the pleadings were closed, in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c).
A judgment on the pleadings entered before the pleadings are closed violates Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c) and is procedurally improper, even when it favors the defendant. Documents relating to a motion to strike as sham cannot provide a basis for judgment on the pleadings, and allegations from superseded complaints are irrelevant when the court has found that a subsequent complaint states a cause of action.
[1] A judgment on the pleadings is procedurally improper when entered before the pleadings are closed.
[2] Documents filed in support of a motion to strike a pleading as a sham cannot form the basis for a judgment on the pleadings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The judgment on the pleadings was procedurally improper because, contrary to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c), the court entered it before the pleadings were closed.”
States the primary holding that the judgment violated procedural requirements regarding when judgment on the pleadings may be entered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetropolitan Bank filed a complaint against Vanguard Insurance, which the court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. An amended complaint…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sham Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This appeal involves the procedural propriety of a judgment on the pleadings.
The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and an amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. When the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss it and also moved to strike it as a sham pleading. However, the defendant never filed an answer to any of the complaints. At the hearing the court denied the motion to dismiss and deferred ruling on the motion to strike. Then, presumably relying upon some allegations contained in the original complaint which were not replead in the second amended compliant and also some documents filed in support of a motion to strike the first amended complaint as sham, the court granted the defendant’s oral motion for a judgment on the pleadings.
The judgment on the pleadings was procedurally improper because, contrary to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c), the court entered it before the pleadings were closed. This is so even though the judgment favored the defendant and the defendant needed only to file its answer in order to close the pleadings. J & S Coin Operated Machines, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 362 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Navarra v. Central National Insurance Co., 213 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). In any event, the documents relating to the motion to strike as sham could not provide a basis for a judgment on the pleadings. Moreover, the allegations of the initial complaint were irrelevant because they were superseded by subsequent complaints, and in denying the motion to dismiss the court concluded that the second amended complaint stated a cause of action. Babb v. Lincoln Auto Finance Co., 133 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Shannon v. McBride, 105 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). We reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
SCHEB, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drs. M.N. Farag and S.T. Iranpur v. Nat'l Databank Subscriptions, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…judgment on the pleadings in his favor was procedurally improper. This is so, even though the judgment favored White and he needed only to file his answer in order to close the pleadings. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Vanguard Insurance Company, 400 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Navarra v. Central National Insurance Co., 213 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.…
-
Raymond v. Zumstorchen Inv., Ltd., 488 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…such a complaint, the pleader causes the new complaint to become a substitute for the prior pleading. Commercial Garden Mall v. Success Academy, Inc., 453 So. 2d 934, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Vanguard Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Rice v. Clement, 184 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). Thus, we limit our review to Raymond’s second amended complaint. In that complaint, Raymond alleged that Alexander and Schwartz created and used Zumstorchen, an assetless…
-
Alanco v. Bystrom, 544 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…y after the pleadings are closed, which generally means after the complaint has been answered by the opposing party. Farag v. National Databank Subscrips., Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Vanguard Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); J & S Coin Operated Machs., Inc. v. Gottlieb, 362 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(c). [*219] We need not reach the substantive issues presented by the petition. REVERSED AND REMANDED. . The respondents/defendan…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- David L. Shannon and Helen v. Shannon, 105 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Babb v. Lincoln Auto Fin. Co., 133 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- J & S Coin Operated Machs., Inc. v. Gottlieb, 362 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Navarra v. The Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Omaha, 213 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)