JOHN R. FORBES, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLAN C. GIMBEL, 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.
John Forbes appeals a judgment entered on Gimbel's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which awarded damages for alleged breach of an employment contract regarding attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings because critical facts were disputed and discovery responses cannot be considered on such a motion.
The court held that it was error to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings because disputed material facts existed regarding the contract terms, when payment was due, when the cause of action accrued, and whether the statute of limitations had run. Even if the motion were treated as one for summary judgment, the judgment could not be affirmed because Forbes lacked proper notice under the rules of civil procedure.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be determined solely on the allegations contained within the pleadings.
[2] A trial court may enter a judgment on the pleadings only if the pleadings themselves reveal no triable issues of fact.
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“In passing on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court is required to take as true the allegations of the party opposing the motion and to take as false all allegations of the moving party that have been denied.”
Establishes the standard of review and burden on a motion for judgment on the pleadings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForbes and Gimbel had an employment contract under which Forbes allegedly owed Gimbel a portion of attorney's fees recovered in certain cases. The cas…
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 Notice Requirements For Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
John R. Forbes appeals a final judgment awarding damages, interest, and costs to appellee, Allan C. Gimbel. The judgment was entered pursuant to an order granting Gimbel’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The sole surviving count of the third amended complaint alleged that Gimbel was employed as an associate of Forbes and that under the terms of their contract Forbes owed Gimbel a portion of the attorney’s fees recovered in certain cases for work Gimbel performed pursuant to that contract. Forbes’s answer disputed the terms of the agreement, denied that he had breached any agreement, and denied that he owed any funds to Gimbel. The answer also alleged that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The case was set for trial on March 10,1988, and on that date Gimbel filed his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion alleged that it was based on the complaint, the answer, the pretrial stipulation, and the defendant’s admissions to plaintiffs request for admissions, and it was argued to the court on that date.
The trial court granted the motion, then took evidence as to damages and the terms of the agreement, and entered the final judgment from which this appeal has been taken.
In passing on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court is required to take as true the allegations of the party opposing the motion and to take as false all allegations of the moving party that have been denied.. City of Miami v. J.C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., 359 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Wagner v. Wagner, 196 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).
The third amended complaint and the answer constituted the only relevant pleadings in this case, Rule 1.100(a), Fla.R.Civil P., and only the pleadings may be considered in ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The request for admissions served pursuant to rule 1.370, referred to in the motion, are matters of discovery under rule 1.280, and such requests and the responses thereto are not properly considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, although they obviously may be considered in connection with a motion for summary judgment. The pleadings in this case reveal that critical facts are in dispute regarding the elements of plaintiff’s cause of action and the statute of limitations defense. The terms of the contract, when payment was due, when the cause of action accrued, and whether the statutory period of the limitations had run could not be decided on the pleadings before the court. It was, therefore, error to grant the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Even if we were to treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment, we could not affirm the judgment because Forbes was not given the requisite notice under the rules of civil procedure. Rule 1.510(c), Fla.R.Civ.P. The judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for trial on the disputed issues of fact.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jaramillo v. Dubow, 588 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…so inform the parties and allow them the time and opportunity called for under the summary judgment rule, Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510, to submit affidavits and other evidentiary materials in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. See Forbes v. Gimbel, 539 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Reno v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc., 516 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c); see also Stone v. Stone, 97 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (procedure under the counter…
-
Holley v. Innovative Tech. OF Destin, Inc., 803 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…A 1983)). In ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court was required to accept the allegations of the party opposing the motion as true, and to treat as false the mov-ant’s allegations that were denied. See Forbes v. Gimbel, 539 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (citing City of Miami v. J.C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., 359 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Wagner v. Wagner, 196 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)).…
-
Chantrala Britt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 935 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ories, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, stipulations, and any other documents permitted to be considered by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. Hart v. Hart, 629 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Forbes v. Gimbel, 539 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (noting that requests for admissions are matters of discovery not properly considered in granting judgment on the pleadings). Review of the pleadings in this case reveals major disputed issues of fact— whether there ever wa…
Authorities Cited
- 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)