GOODMAN
v.
MILLER

Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. | 1961-01-23
No. 1961
17 Fla. Supp. 145 Dade County Circuit Court (1961)

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant's counterclaim was not sham on its face and should not have been dismissed, and that the jurisdictional amount needed clarification.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff obtained a judgment in small claims court, and the defendant's compulsory counterclaim was dismissed as sham. The defendant sought equitable…

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.


Opinion of the Court
JOE EATON, Circuit Judge.

JOE EATON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the small claims court granting plaintiff below a judgment and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim as sham and filed in bad faith.

It appears from the record that the defendant filed a compulsory counterclaim under rule 1.13(1), rules of civil procedure, seeking equitable relief or in the alternative damages at law. The counterclaimant has an adequate remedy at law and therefore is not entitled to equitable relief, but since he has asked for damages at law in his alternative pleading the counterclaim is not sham on its face. Since the counterclaim is compulsory, the plaintiff’s action and the counterclaim should be decided in one forum.

From the pleading as it now stands it is impossible to determine whether the amount in controversy in the counterclaim exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the lower court. Counterclaimant *146should he permitted to amend his pleading to include a proper ad damnum clause, upon the basis of which the lower court is directed to adjudicate the matter or transfer it to the court of appropriate jurisdiction as provided by section 52.12, Florida Statutes, as well as rule 1.13(10), cf. State v. Hendry, 31 So. 2d 254.

The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the lower court for proceedings in accord with this opinion. So ordered.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw