JOSE LORENZO AND DIGNA LORENZO, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LESLIE HUTCHINSON AND MANOPAN HUTCHINSON, HIS WIFE, 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.
The court reversed a judgment on the pleadings against cross-defendants because the cross-claimants failed to negate the cross-defendants' affirmative defenses as a matter of law based on the operative pleadings.
A judgment on the pleadings is improper when the cross-defendants' affirmative defenses are not negated by the facts contained in the operative pleadings on the cross-claim.
[1] A judgment on the pleadings on a cross-claim cannot be granted when the operative pleadings do not negate the cross-defendants' affirmative defenses as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose and Digna Lorenzo were cross-defendants in an interpleader action and appealed an adverse judgment on the pleadings as to liability on a cross-cl…
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 Cross Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The cross-defendants Jose and Digna Lorenzo appeal an adverse judgment on the pleadings as to liability only on a cross-claim filed below in an interpleader action. We are compelled to reverse this order because the cross-claimants Leslie and Ma-nopan Hutchinson were not entitled to such a judgment as a matter of law based on the admitted facts contained in the Hutchinson cross-claim and the Lorenzo answer thereto — the only two pleadings which are relevant to this cross-claim. Without doubt, the cross-defendants’ asserted affirmative defenses are not negated on these eon-cededly sparse facts. See Krieger v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., 387 So. 2d 1012, 1013-14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and authorities collected.
The cross-claimants, to support the judgment under review, rely on facts contained in other pleadings filed by the cross-defendants herein against the interpleading plaintiff. These facts, however, are outside the only operative pleadings on the cross-claim herein, and, consequently, could not have been relied on by the court below in considering the cross-claimants’ motion for judg-' ment on the pleadings as to the said cross-claim. See Castner v. Ziemer, 113 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Even if those facts had been in the operative pleadings, however, a judgment on the pleadings would still have been inappropriate as the asserted affirmative defenses were not negated thereby. See Krieger v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., supra, and authorities collected.
The partial judgment on the pleadings under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Krieger v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 387 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Castner v. Ziemer, 113 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)