MUTCHNIK, INC. CONSTRUCTION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT DIMMERMAN AND ROCHELLE DIMMERMAN, 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.
Mutchnik, Inc. Construction appeals a trial court judgment dismissing its construction lien claim on the basis that the contractor lacked a work permit. The appellate court reverses because the trial court based its decision on an affirmative defense not raised in the pleadings, violating procedural rules requiring parties to raise defenses before trial.
A trial court commits reversible error when it bases its judgment on issues not raised by the parties in the pleadings. The trial court's dismissal of the construction lien claim based on the work permit defense was improper because that defense was not pleaded.
[1] A trial court may not base its judgment on an affirmative defense that was not raised in the pleadings.
[2] A judgment based on an unpleaded affirmative defense is reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court committed error when it based its judgment on issues not raised by the parties in the pleadings”
Establishes the core holding that courts may not decide cases on grounds the parties have not pleaded
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMutchnik formed an oral contract with Robert and Rochelle Dimmerman for construction work on their Miami Beach property. After performing approximatel…
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 Construction Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
Mutchnik, Inc. Construction appeals the entry of an adverse final judgment, arguing that the trial court based its decision on an affirmative defense, working without a building permit, which had not been raised by the pleadings. We agree with Mutchnik’s argument and reverse.
This case arises out of a dispute over payment for labor and construction. Mutchnik formed an oral contract -with appellees Robert and Rochelle Dimmer-man for construction on their Miami Beach property. Mutchnik alleged that, after performing about $17,000 worth of work and submitting an invoice, the Dimmer-mans locked him out of the property and refused to pay him. Mutchnik placed a construction lien on the house and sued the Dimmermans for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered its final judgment finding a valid contract, but dismissing the construction lien claim because Mutchnik had failed to obtain a work permit.1
Upon review, we conclude that the trial court committed error when it based its judgment on issues not raised by the parties in the pleadings. See Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768, 771 (1927); Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Group, LLC, 986 So.2d 1244, 1252 (Fla.2008); Carroll Associates, P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So.2d 24, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); In re Estate of Hatcher, 439 So.2d 977, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for a new trial.2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bank OF NEW York Tr. Co., N.A. v. Rodgers, 79 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)….s.]. Because there was no denial or defense raised in defendants’ pleadings concerning this finding, the judgment under review cannot be permitted to stand for that reason alone. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(h)(1); Mutchnik, Inc. Constr. v. Dimmerman, 23 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (concluding that the trial court erred in basing its judgment on issue not raised in the pleadings); Kissman v. Panizzi, 891 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (lack of standing is waivable affirmative defense); Krivanek v. Take Back…
Authorities Cited
- Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927)
- Arky v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1988)
- Pro-Art Dental LAB, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2008)
- Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- In re The Est. of Helena Hatcher v. Dodd, 439 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Braverman v. VAN Bower, Inc., 583 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)