CHANTRALA BRITT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF RUSSELL WHELPLEY, AND RUSSELL WHELPLEY, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Chantrala Britt appealed a judgment on the pleadings awarding State Farm and Russell Whelpley $107,207.71 in a negligent operation motor vehicle case. The appellate court reversed, holding that disputed factual issues precluded judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law.
The court held that judgment on the pleadings was improper because factual questions remained to be resolved. A trial court may only grant judgment on the pleadings when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based solely on the pleadings.
[1] A trial court may not grant judgment on the pleadings if factual questions remain to be resolved.
[2] In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a trial court is precluded from relying on matters outside the pleadings.
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“To grant judgment on the pleadings, a trial court must find that, based on the pleadings, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for judgment on the pleadings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm, as subrogee of Whelpley, and Whelpley individually sued Britt for negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulting in an accident. Britt, …
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
VILLANTI, Judge.
Chantrala Britt appeals a judgment on the pleadings granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Russell Whelpley $107,207.71 in their suit against-Britt for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Based on our review of the pleadings, we conclude that the court should not have granted judgment on the pleadings, and we therefore reverse.
In this case, the pleadings consist of a complaint filed by State Farm as subrogee of Whelpley and Whelpley, individually, and a letter filed by Britt with the trial court. State Farm and Whelpley rightly refer to this letter as Britt’s answer to the complaint. The complaint alleged that Britt owned and operated a motor vehicle in such a manner that resulted in an accident with Whelpley. Britt’s pro se answer alleged that she had never been in a car accident, her car was never in an accident, she never had any contact with Whelpley, and this was a case of mistaken identity. To grant judgment on the pleadings, a trial court must find that, based on the pleadings, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tanglewood Mobile Sales, Inc. v. Hachem, 805 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). “It is improper to enter a judgment on the pleadings if factual questions remain to be resolved.” Id. And, in considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court is precluded from relying on matters outside the pleadings such as requests for admissions, interrogatories, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, stipulations, and any other documents permitted to be considered by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. Hart v. Hart, 629 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also Forbes v. Gimbel, 539 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (noting that requests for admissions are matters of discovery not properly considered in granting judgment on the pleadings).
Review of the pleadings in this case reveals major disputed issues of fact— whether there ever was a car accident involving Britt and Whelpley and, if so, whether Britt was liable. Therefore, the court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of State Farm and Whelpley. See Martinez v. Fraxedas, 678 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); J & J Util. Co. v. Windmill Village by the Sea Condo. No. I Ass’n, 485 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We reverse the trial court’s final judgment on the pleadings and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cuccarini v. Rosenfeld, 76 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…a mo [*330] tion for rehearing, which the court summarily denied. A judgment on the pleadings is correct only where, based on the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Britt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 935 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Consequently, in cases where factual questions remain unresolved, it is improper for a court to enter a judgment on the pleadings. See Tanglewood Mobile Sales, Inc. v. Hachem, 805 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Additionall…
-
Hilbrands v. BEA C. Hilbrands, 320 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…rily mean the child support calculation would change in Former Husband's favor. Former Wife overlooks that "[i]t is improper to enter a judgment on the pleadings if factual questions remain to be resolved." Britt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 935 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Former Husband's allegations present a factual issue that is improper for a judgment on the pleadings with respect to a potential modification of child support. We therefore reverse the portion of the trial court's order de…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Tanglewood Mobile Sales, Inc. v. Saleh Hachem, 805 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Vicente Martinez v. Fraxedas, 678 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- State v. Heidler, 629 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Halton J. Hart v. Hart, 629 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Cornell Sylvester v. State, 539 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Forbes v. Gimbel, 539 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)