H. W. GRANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A IMPERIAL JEWELERS, APPELLANT,
v.
TONY GUELLI, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's affidavit and deposition admitted the debt but failed to establish a valid affirmative defense of conditional delivery or a collateral agreement under the existing pleadings.
No, the defendant's defensive matter could not be introduced under the existing pleadings, and therefore, no valid defense was interposed, effectively admitting the allegation of debt.
“The deposition and affidavit filed by the Defendant actually admits the truth of this allegation, but seeks to set up an affirmative defense of conditional delivery or a collateral agreement.”
This quote highlights the core of the lower court's reasoning for granting summary judgment, noting the admission of the debt alongside an attempted defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued the defendant for $880 owed on a check. The defendant initially denied the allegations but later, through an affidavit and depositi…
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 Conditional Delivery cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee, as plaintiff in the lower court, filed a complaint alleging that the appellant-defendant owed plaintiff $880 according to a check attached to the complaint. The defendant answered denying the allegations of the complaint but, by affidavit, admitted the truth of the allegations and sought to set up an affirmative defense of conditional delivery by virtue of a collateral agreement. The plaintiff took the deposition of the defendant which was filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The lower court entered an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
In his order, the lower court stated:
“ * * * The deposition and affidavit filed by the Defendant actually admits the truth of this allegation, but seeks to set up an affirmative defense of conditional delivery or a collateral agreement. Such defensive matter cannot be introduced under the pleadings as they exist herein, and therefore no defense is interposed by a deposition or affidavit of the Defendant, but actually the allegation previously quoted is, in effect, admitted * *
We have examined the briefs of counsel and the record in this cause and heard oral argument at the bar of this court. From our perusal of the record, we have reached the conclusion that no reversible error appears in the record and the lower court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., KANNER, J., and REVELS, P. B., Associate Judge, concur.