WASHINGTON L. SANCHEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC., 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.
A homeowner appealed a foreclosure summary judgment after the trial court sua sponte struck his affirmative defenses, including a Truth-in-Lending Act claim, without proper legal grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court cannot sua sponte strike pleadings merely for lack of specificity or evidentiary support.
A trial court cannot sua sponte strike affirmative defenses merely because they lack specificity or support. The court reversed the summary judgment because the trial court struck the defenses without finding them redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or sham—the only grounds that authorize sua sponte dismissal under Florida law.
[1] A trial court should not strike a pleading sua sponte on the ground that it is legally insufficient or because the party may not be able to prove the allegations.
[2] A trial court may strike a pleading sua sponte if it is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
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“Generally, the striking of pleadings is not favored.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that courts should be hesitant to strike pleadings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez defaulted on his mortgage, and LaSalle Bank filed a foreclosure action. Sanchez filed an answer with affirmative defenses, including a claim t…
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 Sham Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
Washington Sanchez (“Sanchez”) appeals from a summary final judgment for foreclosure in favor of LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust (“LaSalle”). We reverse.
Sanchez defaulted under the terms of his mortgage, and LaSalle filed suit for mortgage foreclosure. In response, Sanchez filed an answer and affirmative defenses. Among other things, Sanchez alleged that LaSalle did not comply with the federal Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.
Thereafter, LaSalle responded to the affirmative defenses, and moved for summary judgment. Shortly before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Sanchez moved to add additional affirmative defenses. The trial court granted Sanchez’ motion, but then sua sponte struck all of Sanchez’ affirmative defenses. The trial court also granted LaSalle’s motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, Sanchez asserts that the trial court erred in striking his affirmative defenses and entering summary judgment. LaSalle contends the trial court properly struck the affirmative defenses because *228they were not specific or supported. We agree with Sanchez.
Generally, the striking of pleadings is not favored. See, e.g., Menke v. Southland Specialties Corp., 637 So.2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Costa Bella Dev. Corp. v. Costa Dev. Corp., 445 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Florida Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a trial court sua sponte to strike a pleading which is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous,” and, upon a party’s motion, a pleading which is sham. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f), 1.150. A trial court, however, should not strike a pleading sua sponte on the ground that it is legally insufficient, or because the party subsequently may not be able to prove his or her allegations. Bay Colony Office Bldg. Joint Venture v. Wachovia Mortgage Co., 342 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Here, the trial court, on its own motion, struck Sanchez’ affirmative defenses without finding them redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous or a sham. Apparently, the trial court deemed the defenses to be lacking in specificity and support. Neither of these grounds warrants the sua sponte dismissal of Sanchez’ affirmative defenses.
Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment, and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morikawa v. Norberto Castro (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Where an order adjudicates issues neither presented by the pleadings nor litigated by the parties, it denies fundamental due process and must be reversed.”) (citation omitted); see also Sanchez v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 44 So. 3d 227, 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“A trial court . . . should not strike a pleading sua sponte on the ground that it is legally insufficient.”) (citation omitted). In the instant case, however, Castro urged dismissal through two separately filed motions.…
-
Abdel Oscar Delgado v. Arnei Morejon, 295 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…ue was not with the timeliness of Former Husband’s amendment to his second petition, but rather, to the sufficiency of his pleading. That was an issue for the parties to litigate. See Lawson, 197 So. 3d at 1271; Sanchez v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 44 So. 3d 227, 6 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (stating that striking of pleadings is not favored and trial court should not sua sponte strike pleading because it is legally insufficient or party may not be able to prove allegations). 7…
Authorities Cited
- Costa Bella Dev. Corp. v. Costa Dev. Corp., 445 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Menke v. Southland Specialties Corp., 637 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- BAY Colony Off. Bldg. Joint Venture v. Wachovia Mortg. Co., 342 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)