SWIM INDUSTRIES CORP., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CAVALIER MANUFACTURING CO., INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, AND ARNOLD F. MORRIS, GAIL MORRIS, AND JOHN PEREZ, 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.
Swim Industries Corporation appealed a partial judgment on the pleadings entered against it in favor of individual defendants. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because material issues of fact remained regarding each of the thirteen counts in Swim Industries' amended complaint.
The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the defendants failed to carry their burden of showing they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After accepting the plaintiff's pleadings as true and treating the defendants' denials as false, material issues of fact remained regarding each of the thirteen counts.
[1] A judgment on the pleadings may only be granted if the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, taking all material allegations of the opposing…
[2] When ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all material allegations of the opposing party's pleadings are taken as true, and all those of the movants, which h…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A motion for a judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c) must be decided wholly on the pleadings and may only be granted if the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for judgment on the pleadings motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwim Industries filed a fourth amended complaint containing thirteen counts against Cavalier Manufacturing Company, Inc., Arnold F. Morris, Gail Morri…
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 Judgment On The Pleadings Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Swim Industries Corporation, challenges a partial judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of the appellees, Arnold F. Morris, Gail Morris, and John Perez. The appellee Cavalier Manufacturing Company, Inc. has cross-appealed the denial of its motion to vacate a final default judgment entered against it. We find no merit in the cross-appeal and, accordingly, affirm, without further discussion, the trial court’s order denying Cavalier’s motion to vacate the final default judgment. We, however, find that the trial court erred by entering a partial judgment on the pleadings against the appellant and, accordingly, reverse for further proceedings in connection with the appellant’s fourth amended complaint.
The appellant filed a fourth amended complaint containing thirteen counts against the appellees. A final default judgment was entered against Cavalier Manufacturing Company, Inc. Arnold F. Morris filed an answer containing twenty-two defenses. A separate answer was filed by his wife, Gail Morris. The trial court, upon the motions of Arnold F. Morris and Gail Morris, entered a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Gail Morris and John Perez and a partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of Arnold F. Morris. The judgment resolved all of the counts against Arnold F. Morris but the one count concerning trespass. This timely appeal followed.
A motion for a judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c) must be decided wholly on the pleadings and may only be granted if the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In making this determination, all material allegations of the opposing party’s pleadings are to be taken as true, and all those of the movants, which have been denied, are taken as false. Farag v. Nat’l Databank Subscriptions, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also Shay v. First Fed., Inc., 429 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Krieger v. Ocean Properties, LTD., 387 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In this case, the appellees did not carry their burden of showing they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. After considering the answers and defenses of the appellees as false and accepting the appellant’s pleadings as true, several material issues of fact remain in connection with each of the thirteen counts of the appellant’s fourth amended complaint. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting the appellees’ motion for a judgment on the pleadings.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris v. Paps, 615 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…t on the pleadings was not warranted. In reviewing such a judgment, all material allegations of the opposing party are taken as true, and all those of the moving party that have been denied are taken as false. Swim Indus. Corp. v. Cavalier Mfg. Co., 559 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA1990). The court is not permitted to consider any matter outside the pleadings. Farag v. National Databank Subscriptions, 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA1984). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proc…
-
Coddington v. John Staab also known as Jack Staab, 716 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…acts admitted for the purpose of the motion, the moving party is clearly entitled to 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 fo…
-
Fern P. Clarke v. Henderson, 74 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”). Finding that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard for reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we reverse. See Swim Indus. v. Cavalier Mfg. Co., 559 So. 2d 301, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (stating that a Rule 1.140(c) motion “must be decided wholly on the pleadings and may only be granted if the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”). The complaint and its attachments aver the fol…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ira Shay & Shalev Corp. v. First Fed. OF Miami, Inc., 429 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Krieger v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 387 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Drs. M.N. Farag and S.T. Iranpur v. Nat'l Databank Subscriptions, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)