GENERAL GMC TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
J.D. SIMM AND ROSEMARY SIMM D/B/A SIMM-LINES, APPELLEES
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.
General GMC Truck Sales appealed a judgment on the pleadings dismissing its complaint for breach of an oral agreement to sell a specially modified truck. The trial court improperly relied on the buyer's affirmative defense of a written non-binding contract, ignoring the seller's well-pleaded allegations of an oral contract, creating a factual dispute.
The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings. When a motion for judgment on the pleadings is made, all well-pleaded allegations of the non-moving party must be taken as true and all denied allegations of the moving party as false. The buyer's admission of the allegations through its motion entitles it to judgment as a matter of law only if those admitted facts clearly entitle it to judgment, which an alleged non-binding written contract does not when contradicted by alleged oral contract allegations.
[1] A judgment on the pleadings is improper when the non-moving party's well-pleaded allegations raise factual issues.
[2] In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded allegations of the non-moving party are taken as true.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Since the judgment under review is one on the pleadings entered upon motion of the defendants-appellees, all well pleaded allegations of the nonmoving party (appellant) are taken to be true while those of the movants (appellees) that have been denied are taken as false.”
Establishes the foundational standard for judgment on the pleadings that the trial court failed to apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeneral GMC Truck Sales and the Simms entered into an alleged oral agreement for the sale of a specially modified truck at $27,754.72. The buyer paid …
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 Well-Pleaded Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of a buyer against the seller of a specially modified truck. We reverse and remand.
The seller’s amended complaint alleged that the parties entered into an oral agreement for the sale and purchase of the truck at a price of $27,754.72; that the buyer simultaneously delivered to the seller its deposit of $1,100; that within two months, the truck had been modified and was delivered to the seller but that the buyer refused to perform its remaining obligations under the agreement; that the seller expended a material sum for the design and modification of the truck; and that it had been unable to sell the truck to anyone else. The buyer’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied. In its subsequent answer, the buyer denied all of the seller’s allegations and pled the following affirmative defenses:
1. Plaintiffs reduced to writing on their own form titled “Retail Order for a Motor Vehicle” the entire agreement of the parties. Said document contains the following languate [sic]... “The front and back of this Order comprise the entire agreement affecting this purchase and no other agreement or understanding of any nature concerning same has been made or entered into, or will be recognized.” A true copy of said document is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit “A”.
2. Said written Agreement states on its face ... “THIS IS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT.”
The trial court recognized only the affirmative defenses; and although the exhibit is not attached to the pleading'as alleged, our decision is predicated upon the actual existence of the exhibit as if it were so attached and reads as alleged.
We reverse as the trial court’s decision was literally based on form over substance. Appellant’s amended complaint created factual issues; and it was error to ignore the allegations made therein. As this court said in McAbee v. Edwards, 340 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976):
Since the judgment under review is one on the pleadings entered upon motion of the defendants-appellees, all well pleaded allegations of the nonmoving party (appellant) are taken to be true while those of the movants (appellees) that have been denied are taken as false. Butts v. State Farm Automobile Mutual Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (3d DCA, Fla.1968).
See also City of Miami v. J.C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., 359 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), which held:
The function of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as a former common law demurrer. The well-pleaded allegations of the party opposing the motion are to be taken as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false. Wagner v. Wagner, 196 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Such a motion raises questions of law arising on the pleadings. Miller v. Eatmon, 177 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). Even when a motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated as a motion for summary judgment, it is to be heard wholly on the pleadings, without aid of facts dehors the pleadings. Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1956); Butts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The procedure is designed to be primarily for application of the law to the facts. Riviera Printing Co. v. Hessler’s, Inc., 109 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Judgment may be granted only if, on the facts admitted for the purpose of the motion, the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Paradise Pools, Inc. v. Genauer, 104 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Miller v. Eatmon, supra.
By its motion, the buyer admitted the allegations of the amended complaint. Having so admitted them, it was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on an alleged “nonbinding written contract.” The document appears to be antithetical to the parties’ alleged oral contract and to have been completely disregarded by them as viewed from the seller’s amended complaint.
BERANEK, J., concurs.
LETTS, C.J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Windle v. W.W. Windle Co., Inc., 731 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…if, on the facts as admitted for purposes of the motion, the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment. Yunkers v. Yunkers, 515 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citations omitted). See also General GMC Truck Sales & Serv., Inc. v. J.D. Simm, 430 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Scarborough Assocs. v. Financial Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Dade County, 647 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Since we are reversing the final judgment on the pleadings, we consequently affirm the trial court’s non-fin…
-
Coddington v. John Staab also known as Jack Staab, 716 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…a judgment as a matter of law. See Delgado v. J.W. Courtesy Pontiac GMC-Truck, Inc., 693 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Swim Indus. Corp. v. Cavalier Mfg. Co., 559 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); General GMC Truck Sales and Serv., Inc. v. Simm, 430 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(c). We hold that the trial court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings, as the pleadings state a cause of action for trespass. Trespass to real property has been defined as “an unauthorized entry ont…
-
Magula v. Gossett, 568 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…complaint did state a cause of action and factual questions remain. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate in this instance. McAbee v. Edwards, 340 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); See also General GMC Truck Sales And Serv. v. Simm, 430 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Riccio v. Stein, 559 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) rev dismissed, 567 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1990). REVERSED. DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Butts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Reserve Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1956)
- Jacquelyn Yon McABEE v. Edwards, 340 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Miller v. George C. Eatmon et ux., 177 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Paradise Pools, Inc. v. Genauer, 104 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 196 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- City OF Miami v. J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., 359 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Riviera Printing Co. v. Hessler's, Inc., 109 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)