BEAU BRUMMELL TIES, INC.
v.
REISER
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.
Trial court improperly struck defendant's answer as sham and entered summary judgment based on unverified allegations about defendant's admissions in another case, violating proper pleading procedure.
A trial court cannot strike a defendant's answer as sham or enter summary judgment based on unverified statements in a plaintiff's motion regarding the defendant's alleged admissions in a separate proceeding.
[1] A trial court cannot take judicial notice of proceedings in another court based solely on unverified allegations in a party's motion and cannot use such extraneous matter…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff advanced cash and supplied merchandise to defendant totaling $4,225.85, of which $2,688.72 was paid, and sued to recover the $1,537.13 balan…
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 Motion Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff-appellee alleged in its complaint that it had advanced cash and supplied merchandise to the defendant-appellant and that the amount of the cash and the value of the merchandise totaled $4,225.85, of which $2,688.72 had been paid. The action was for the recovery of the balance of $1,537.13.
The defendant-appellant, in his amended answer, denied the allegations of the complaint and averred that he owed the plaintiffappellee nothing.
On the plaintiff-appellee’s motion for a “judgment on the pleadings,” under rule 1.11 (c) of the Florida rules of civil procedure, the court below looked beyond the pleadings and improperly considered the unverified statement in the plaintiff-appellee’s motion to strike the amended answer that in another cause (in this court) the defendant-appellant had admitted under oath his indebtedness to the plaintiff-appellee. Basing its action on such extrinsic matter, the court below struck the amended answer as “sham” and entered summary judgment for the plaintiff-appellee.
*171The court below clearly had no warrant for taking judicial notice of the proceedings in another court, especially when there was nothing to bring such proceedings to the court’s attention other than the mentioned unverified statement in the plaintiffappellee’s motion.
The procedure cannot be sanctioned.
The judgment appealed from (entered in minute book 78, at page 26, of the records of the court below) is reversed and the cause is remanded for further appropriate proceedings consistent with this opinion and judgment.