ONEDIA LAND COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ADAM C. RICHARD, ET AL., 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.
A mortgage foreclosure case in which the defendant raised fraud and misrepresentation defenses regarding the vendor's title. The trial court struck the defendant's answer, and the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that an answer containing defective but amendable allegations should not be stricken entirely, particularly when it includes denials of material allegations in the complaint.
The court held that an answer should not be stricken unless it is wholly irrelevant or otherwise improper. Although the affirmative allegations in the answer may be defective, the answer is not irrelevant or wholly insufficient and therefore should not have been stricken. The court may allow amendments to properly state the asserted defense, particularly when the answer contains denials of material allegations in the bill of complaint.
“A pleading should not be stricken unless it is wholly irrelevant or is otherwise improper.”
Establishes the standard for striking pleadings in equity practice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOnedia Land Company brought a foreclosure action on a purchase money mortgage. The defendant (Adam C. Richard et al.) filed an answer containing averm…
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 Chancery Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This proceeding was brought to foreclose a purchase money mortgage upon lands. The defendant’s answer contains in addition to other pertinent matters, averments of fraud and misrepresentation as to the title of the vendor. This answer was stricken on motion made upon grounds going to the sufficiency of the answer as a defense to foreclosure. There was a final decree for the complainant and the defendant appealed.
Section 3, Chapter 6907 provides that:
“If an answer set up an affirmative defense, set-off or counterclaim, the plaintiff may, upon five days’ notice, or such further time as the Court may allow, test the sufficiency of the same by motion to strike outi If found insufficient but amendable, the Court may allow an amendment upon terms or strike out the matter.”
This section does not expressly abolish exceptions to answers in chancery, and it is not now necessary to determine the extent to which Chapter 6907 modifies the statutes and rules as to equity practice. The quoted statute authorizes the court “to strike out” matters not proper to be pleaded, or to “allow an amendment upon terms;” but it does not authorize the striking of an entire answer containing matters that may be “insufficient but amendable.”
A pleading should not be stricken unless it is wholly irrelevant or is otherwise improper. .While the averments of affirmative matters contained in the answer in this case may be defective, the answer is not irrelevant or wholly insufficient. But even on a motion to strike the entire answer, the Chancellor may, to facilitate the administration of justice, allow amendments so that the asserted defense may be properly stated. This is particularly so when the answer contains denials of material allegations of the bill of complaint.
For the error in striking the answer the decree is reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canal Lumber Co. v. Gress, 83 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1922)…o. (Opinion filed January 30, 1922), 83 Fla. 153, 90 South. Rep. 696; Southern Ferro Concrete Co. v. Federal Terra Cotta Co., 79 Fla. 376, 84 South. Rep. 171; Campbell v. A. L. Wilson Co., 74 Fla. 608, 77 South. Rep. 540; Oneida Land Co. v. Richard, 73 Fla. 884, 75 South. Rep. 412. The decre appealed from is reversed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., dissents.…
-
Chavous v. Gornto, 89 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1925)…e cause by sham pleading. In a number of cases this court has held that striking a pleading is a severe remedy and should be resorted to only [*17] in cases palpably requiring it for the proper administration of justice. Oneida Land Co. v. Richard, 73 Fla. 884, 75 South. Rep. 412; Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 South. Rep. 300; Guggenheimer v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 South. Rep. 801. Pleas entirely destitute of merit and which are plainly frivolous and trifling may be stricken. Southern Home Ins. Co. v. P…
-
Ivey v. S. States Power Co., 128 Fla. 345 (Fla. 1937)…der v. Prestman, 103 Fla. 852, 138 Sou. 473. In Monroe R. Lightsey, et ux., v. A. P. Butts, et al., 89 Fla. 185, 104 Sou. 852, we said: “Unless wholly irrelevant or otherwise improper, a pleading should not be stricken. Oneida Land Co. v. Richard, 73 Fla. 884, 75 South. Rep. 412; Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, [*351] 63 South. Rep. 300; Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 South. Rep. 801.” The third ground of the motion says that the amended declaration is a departure in pleading. We can not conc…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence