HALTON J. HART, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNY A. HART, 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.
Halton Hart challenges a trial court judgment declaring his marriage to Penny Hart null and void ab initio. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the trial court erred by granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings when factual issues remained that precluded such a ruling.
The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings because factual questions remained that could not be resolved on the pleadings alone. A motion for judgment on the pleadings may only be granted when the pleadings themselves reveal no facts for a trier of fact to resolve.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be determined solely on the allegations contained within the pleadings.
[2] It is improper for a trial court to enter a judgment on the pleadings when factual questions remain unresolved.
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 judgment on the pleadings must be determined on the pleadings. Consideration of the motion allows the trial court to examine the allegations of the bare pleadings and determine whether there are any issues of fact based thereon.”
Establishes the strict standard that judgment on the pleadings requires examination only of the pleadings themselves
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHalton Hart filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Penny Hart. Penny Hart answered with a counter-petition seeking annulment or a declaration th…
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 Factual Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Halton J. Hart, challenges a final judgment holding that the marriage between the appellant and the appellee, Penny A. Hart, was null and void ab initio. We find that the trial court erred in entering a judgment on the pleadings and, accordingly, reverse.
The appellant commenced this action in the trial court by filing a petition seeking to dissolve the parties’ marriage. The appellee answered and filed a counter-petition seeking to have the marriage annulled or declared null and void. After the pleadings were closed, the appehee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted and the court entered a final judgment declaring that the marriage was null and void ab initio. This timely appeal followed.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be determined on the pleadings. Consideration of the motion allows the trial court to examine the allegations of the bare pleadings and determine whether there are any issues of fact based thereon. If the pleadings themselves reveal that there are no facts to be resolved by a trier of fact, the court may apply the law to the uncontrovert-ed facts and enter a judgment accordingly. Bradham v. Hayes Enters., Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). It follows that it is improper for a trial court to enter judgment on the pleadings where factual questions remain. Farag v. Nat’l Databank Subscriptions, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The appellee does not contend that the pleadings establish that there is no issue of fact to be decided but instead contends that the trial court was correct because of a stipulation of the parties and because the appellant refused to cooperate in discovery. If the trial court had been asked to rule on a motion for summary judgment it could have properly considered requests for admissions, interrogatories, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, stipulations, and any other documents permitted to be considered by the rule. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510; Bradham. The trial court, however, was considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and it must be determined only on the pleadings and without the aid of outside matters such as affidavits, depositions or other showings of fact. Turner v. Turner, 599 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). A review of all of the pleadings in this case reflects several issues of fact, and since the trial court is precluded from relying on matters outside the pleadings, the court erred by granting the appel-lee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See J & J Utility Co. v. Windmill Village By The Sea Condominium No. I Ass’n, Inc., 485 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. Demming, 682 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…o. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (in ruling on motion to dismiss, trial court must accept material allegations of complaint as true and may not consider affirmative defenses raised by defendant or evidence parties likely to produce); Hart v. Hart, 629 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (in ruling on motion for judgment on the pleadings, trial court must confine its determination to the pleadings and may not enter judgment where factual questions remain). Accordingly, even though a trial court would be emin…
-
Fern P. Clarke v. Henderson, 74 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…. Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). “If the pleadings themselves reveal that there are no facts to be resolved by a trier of fact, the court may apply the law to the uncontroverted facts and enter a judgment accordingly.” Hart v. Hart, 629 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, if factual questions remain, judgment should not be entered. Id. [*115] In this case, the allegations of the complaint and the attachments thereto, taken as true, establish that Clarke provided some or all of the f…
-
Briarwinds Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Marcene Rigsby and Denny Wood, 51 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…First Fed. Of Miami, 429 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Here, a review of the complaint does not convince us that the defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, there are still unresolved factual questions. Hart v. Hart, 629 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The defendants’ main argument on appeal, as below, assailed count two of the complaint for failure to allege irreparable injury. However, count two sought an injunction based on the defendants’ violation of section 718.303, Flor…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilda H. Bradham v. Hayes Enters., Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Drs. M.N. Farag and S.T. Iranpur v. Nat'l Databank Subscriptions, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- 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)
- Turner v. Turner, 599 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)