UNITED INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA LANGTON, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by considering facts outside the pleadings when ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
A buyer sued a seller for breach of a real property sale contract. After initial denials of motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, 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 Verified Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The buyer appeals an adverse judgment on the pleadings in an action for breach of a contract for the sale of real property. She argues the trial court erred by considering facts outside of the pleadings in ruling on the motion. We agree and reverse.
The buyer filed a verified complaint against the seller, alleging a contract for the purchase of real property. The seller moved to dismiss arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The trial court denied the motion. The seller answered the complaint, alleged affirmative defenses, and filed a counterclaim.
The defendant then moved for a judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court initially denied. The seller, however, filed a motion for rehearing and claimed that she had not received a subsequently-filed memorandum from the buyer before the court ruled on her motion. She also filed a memorandum contesting certain statements contained in the buyer’s memorandum. The trial court granted the motion for rehearing, reversed its decision, and granted the seller’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The buyer argues the trial court erred when it granted the seller’s motion for judgment on the pleadings since its verified complaint properly pleaded a claim for breach of contract. We agree.
We review judgments on the pleadings de novo. Martinez v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 863 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla.2003). All well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Id. We have reviewed the buyer’s verified complaint and find that it sufficiently alleges a claim for breach of contract. J.J. Gumberg Co. v. Janis Servs., Inc., 847 So. 2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The trial court erred when it considered facts beyond the pleadings in ruling on the motion.
Reversed and Remanded.
STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mercantil Bank, N.A. v. Pazmino, 262 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…oper because the bank had not obtained a money judgment in the foreclosure action and it failed to sell the foreclosed property. We agree with the borrowers. We review a judgment on the pleadings de novo. United Inv. & Dev. Corp. v. Langton, 952 So. 2d 1260, 1260-61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). A judgment “constitutes a cause of action upon which a new and independent action may be based.” Crane v. Nuta, 26 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1946). “If a limitations period has almost run on a judgment, a judgment c…
Authorities Cited
- Martinez v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 863 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2003)
- J.J. Gumberg Co. v. Janis Servs., Inc., 847 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)