ROBERT C. COLLINS AND PHYLLIS COLLINS, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRENDA FAY BANNON AND OTIS SCOTT JEFFREY, 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.
The Collinses appealed a bench trial judgment in favor of Bannon and Jeffrey that found a real estate agreement unenforceable due to lack of meeting of the minds. The court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly based its judgment on an issue that neither party had pleaded or litigated.
A judgment may not be based on an issue that has not been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties. Since neither party's pleadings alleged unenforceability due to lack of meeting of the minds and neither party raised this issue at trial, the trial court improperly based its judgment on it.
[1] A judgment may not be based on an issue that has not been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties.
[2] A trial court cannot properly find an agreement void ab initio for vagueness or ambiguity where the issue was neither framed by the pleadings nor raised by the parties at…
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 judgment may not be based on an issue that has not been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that trial courts cannot base judgments on unlitigated issues.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties disputed a real estate agreement. Bannon and Jeffrey alleged in their complaint that the Collinses owed them $1,500 as a deposit under the…
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 Meeting Of The Minds cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Robert C. Collins and Phyllis Collins appeal a final judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of Brenda Fay Bannon and Otis Scott Jeffrey. The final judgment found that a real estate agreement between the parties was unenforceable because there was no meeting of the minds. We agree with the Collinses that the trial court improperly based the final judgment on this issue where neither party raised it.
A judgment may not be based on an issue that has not been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties. See Gordon v. Gordon, 543 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see also Noonan-Judson v. Surrency, 669 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In Spencer v. Devine, 364 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the trial court found that an agreement between the parties was void ab initio, because it was so vague and ambiguous that no meeting of the minds ever existed. The First District reversed, holding that such finding was improper where the issue was neither framed by the pleadings nor raised by the parties at trial. See 364 So. 2d at 23.
In the present case, Bannon and Jeffrey alleged in count I of their complaint that the Collinses were required to pay them $1,500 as a deposit pursuant to the contract.1 In count II, Bannon and Jeffrey sought to recover possession of the property, alleging that the contract may not be enforceable because it did not contain a legal description of the property and, in the alternative, that the Collinses breached the contract. During closing arguments, Bannon and Jeffrey argued only that the Collinses breached the contract.2 Neither party argued that the contract was void because there was no meeting of the minds. Therefore, since neither of the parties’ pleadings alleged that the contract was unenforceable because there was no meeting of the minds and neither party raised this issue at trial, the trial court improperly based the final judgment on such.
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur. . The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of the Collinses as to count I.
. In the final judgment, the trial court found that the contract contained a sufficient description of the property.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sabine v. Sabine, 834 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…egarding her current increased financial needs. We agree and reverse. Where, as here, a judgment is not based on an issue that had been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties, it may not stand. Collins v. Bannon, 774 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Gordon v. Gordon, 548 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that the trial court erred in ordering that parties in the dissolution action list the marital home for sale, where the motion before the court was for change…
-
Boca Concepts, Inc. v. Metal Shield Corp., 78 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…e meaning to Article XIV. Moreover, as Boca Concepts points out, no party raised this issue below or argued regarding any ambiguity in the contract. Therefore, the trial court was not permitted to base its decision on this ground. Collins v. Bannon, 774 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“A judgment may not be [*573] based on an issue that has not been framed by the pleadings, noticed for hearing, or litigated by the parties.”). We hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the March 20 letter was no…
Authorities Cited
- Chandler v. State, 543 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 543 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Spencer v. Devine, 364 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Richardson v. Healthsouth Doctor's Hosp. Inc., 669 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Noonan-Judson v. Surrency, 669 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)