JUAN E. JARAMILLO AND CLARA INEZ JARAMILLO, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALAN E. DUBOW, AS TRUSTEE, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's judgment on the pleadings granted to defendant Dubow based on the affirmative defense of res judicata, holding that the trial court impermissibly relied on facts outside the pleadings. The court clarified that motions for judgment on the pleadings must be decided solely on the pleadings, and if a court wishes to consider extrinsic evidence, it must convert the motion to one for summary judgment with proper notice to the parties.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings without considering extraneous matters. If a trial court wishes to consider evidence outside the pleadings, it must convert the motion to one for summary judgment and provide the parties with notice and opportunity to submit affidavits and other evidentiary materials in accordance with the summary judgment rules.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided solely on the pleadings without consideration of outside matters.
[2] Allegations in an opposing party's pleading are taken as true when considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
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“a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings without aid of outside matters.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that motions for judgment on the pleadings are restricted to the pleadings alone
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJaramillo and his wife filed suit against Alan E. Dubow, as trustee. Dubow filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the affirmative defen…
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 Matters Outside The Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because the trial court, without dispute, relied on essential facts outside the pleadings when it granted the defendant Alan E. Dubow’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the affirmative defense of res judicata, the final judgment on the pleadings was erroneously entered below and must be reversed. Although the point was not raised below, the error here is fundamental in nature and may be raised for the first time on appeal. J & J Util. Co. v. Windmill Village By the Sea Condominium No. 1 Ass’n, 485 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); City of Miami v. J.C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., 359 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see Keyes Co. v. Sens, 382 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
It is settled that “[a] motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings without aid of outside matters.” J & J Util. Co., 485 So. 2d at 36 (citations omitted); accord Hanft v. Phelan, 488 So. 2d 531, 531 n. (Fla.1986) (“Extrinsic evidence cannot be considered ... on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”) “In considering such a motion, all material allegations of the opposing party’s pleading are taken as true, and all of the movant’s allegations which have been denied are taken as false. Since the answer requires no responsive pleading, all allegations contained therein are deemed denied.” Butts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (citations omitted). Where, as here, there has been no reply to the affirmative defense of res judicata, it is deemed to be denied, and therefore false. J & J Util. Co., 485 So. 2d at 36-37; see also Falick v. Sun N Sea, Inc., 81 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla.1955); Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.100(a), 1.110(e).
The defendant contends, however, that at the hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court had the discretion to treat the motion as being a motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the court to consider matters outside the pleadings. There is no merit to this argument because the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and at no time entertained the subject motion as a motion for summary judgment. Beyond that, where the trial court determines that it wishes to treat a motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment so that it may consider matters outside the pleadings, it must 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 counterpart federal rule). Clearly, this procedure was not followed in the instant case.1
The final judgment on the pleadings is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, without prejudice to the defendant raising the res judicata defense herein on a motion for summary judgment in which undisputed material facts outside the pleadings may be relied on in support thereof.
Reversed and remanded.
. The parties have both cited a portion of City of Miami v. J.C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., which states, "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." 359 So. 2d at 535. This cryptic sentence is a shorthand version of a point made in Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1956): a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is functionally equivalent to a defendant’s motion for summary judgment which is predicated solely on the pleadings. Id. at 132-33. J.C. Vereen follows Reinhard in saying that the legal standard is the same for both. The statement in J.C. Vereen has little practical meaning, however, because under the present rules of civil procedure, there is no necessity to convert a motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment where the matter is to be resolved on the basis of the pleadings alone; in such circumstances, it is entirely sufficient to proceed on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp., 967 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…the authority to sua sponte treat a motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment so long as the trial court affords the parties an adequate opportunity to submit affidavits and other evidentiary matters. Jaramillo v. Dubow, 588 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Although the trial court here did not treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment until after the court had heard argument on the issue, given the litigation between the parties, and the fact that other issues in the c…
-
Siegel v. Bettie I. Whitaker, 946 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…3 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The former husband initially argues that the former wife impermissibly relied entirely on allegations contained in her answer and affirmative defenses in obtaining judgment on the pleadings. See Jaramillo v. Dubow, 588 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (defendant cannot obtain judgment on the pleadings on basis of allegations contained, in his or her answer or affirma [*1082] tive defenses since such allegations are deemed denied and taken as false). This contention, however, ig…
-
Roman v. Bogle, 113 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…Brewster v. Castano, 937 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“When there has been no reply to an affirmative defense, it is deemed to be denied and therefore false.”); Ferris v. Ferris, 660 So. 2d 418, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Jaramillo v. Dubow, 588 So. 2d 677, 677-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp. v. Seebeck, 399 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(e) (“Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- 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)
- Stone v. Stone, 97 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- The Keyes Co. v. Sens, 382 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- City OF Miami v. J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc., 359 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- J & J Util. Co., Inc. v. Windmill Vill. by the Sea Condo. No. I Ass'n, Inc., 485 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Donald Hanft, M.D. v. Phelan, 488 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1986)
- Falick v. SUN N SEA, Inc., 81 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1955)
- Villarreal v. State, 516 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Robert Reno, M.D. v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc., 516 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)