JUANA DELACRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed foreclosure judgment where trial court improperly rejected defendant's unlabeled affirmative defense based on lack of required face-to-face interview, holding that pleading labels are not controlling when factual basis provides sufficient notice.
Failure to label a defense as an affirmative defense does not waive it when the factual basis provides sufficient notice of the defense's precise nature.
[1] A defense is properly pleaded when the factual allegations provide sufficient notice of the defense's basis, regardless of whether the defendant formally labels it as an…
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 intelligence“pleading labels (or lack thereof) seldom control. Work v. Provine, 632 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Where, as here, the factual basis for the defense provides sufficient notice to apprise the plaintiff of the precise basis for the defense, the failure to affix the correct label is not an impediment to a determination on the merits.”
Court explaining that formal labeling of defenses is not determinative when the factual allegations provide adequate notice.
Juana DeLaCruz was sued in foreclosure by Wells Fargo Bank. DeLaCruz denied with specificity that Wells Fargo had conducted a required face-to-face in…
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 Affirmative Defense Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
In this foreclosure case, on the threshold of the scheduled oral argument, Appellee conceded error, based in part on our recently released opinion in Palma v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 5D15-3358, — S.W.3d -, 2016 WL 7176754 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 2, 2016). Palma settled the primary issue framed in this appeal— whether Appellant properly pled Appel-lee’s failure to comply with a precondition to acceleration as a defense. Appellant denied with specificity that Appellee had conducted a “face-to-face” interview, as required by the terms of the mortgage, but she did not label this defensive assertion as an “affirmative defense.” The trial court accepted Appellee’s argument that the unlabeled defense was not properly pled and deemed it waived. Although Palma settled the largely semantic issue upon which the trial court based its ruling, it failed to emphasize that pleading labels (or lack thereof) seldom control. Work v. Provine, 632 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Where, as here, the factual basis for the defense provides sufficient notice to apprise the plaintiff of the precise basis for the defense, the failure to affix the correct label is not an impediment to a determination on the merits. Appellee also rightfully concedes that its failure to move into evidence the modification agreement was error on this record.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand the judgment with instructions that the trial court enter an order of involuntary dismissal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY, JJ., and THOMPSON, E. R., Senior Judge, concur.