CHARLES E. SORENSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
C. L. ESHELMAN, 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 court held that the defendant waived the Statute of Frauds defense by failing to raise it in his answer.
The defendant appealed an adverse jury verdict, arguing the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict and in not ruling the claim barred by the…
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 Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Charles E. Sorensen, appeals from an adverse final judgment rendered upon a $17,772.73 jury verdict.
He asserts that reversible error was committed in the trial court’s failure to direct a verdict for him and in the court’s failure to rule that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds. We disagree.
An examination of the record reveals sufficient conflict of evidence to affirm the judgment of the trial court in denying the defendant’s several motions for a directed verdict. See City of Hialeah v. Revels, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 400.
The defendant never raised the Statute of Frauds as an affirmative defense in his answer. See Rule 1.110, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. By failing to properly plead this affirmative defense, the defendant waived his right to raise it. Gordon Internat’l Adv. v. Charlotte County L. & T. Co., Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 59; Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 324.
The appellant has argued that he was without knowledge of the facts of the claim asserted against him until after the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief, at which time he first attempted to raise the applicability of the Statute of Frauds.
The record reflects that the complaint and exhibit attached thereto, together with the various pre-trial discovery proceedings, did properly notify the defendant of the subject matter of his claim. The opening statement of his attorney also indicates knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff claimed he had entered into a contract with the defendant for some sort of services to be rendered.
Accordingly, the final judgment is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Hanratty, 281 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…rting and subsequently proving at trial. See Rule 1.110(d), RCP, 30 F.S.A.; Sonnenblick-Goldman of Miami Corp. v. Feldman, Fla.App.1972, 266 So. 2d 48; Rod-Lyn Corporation v. DeBelay, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 233; Sorensen v. Eshelman, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 597; Gordon International Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land & Title Co., Fla.App.1964, 170 So. 2d 59; Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App.1958, 108 So. 2d 324. Since the affirmative defense was not asserted in the answer or at any time prior to trial, the…
-
Sonnenblick-Goldman OF Miami Corp. v. Feldman, 266 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…e, and filed its motion for leave to allow amendment to conform to evidence. When an affirmative defense, such as the statute of frauds, is not raised by answer, it is waived. Rule 1.110(d), R.C. P., 30 F.S.A. See Sorensen v. Eshelman, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 597. We also note that Fla.Stat. § 92.031(4), F.S.A., requires reasonable notice of intention to rely upon foreign law. The appellant New York corporation’s fourth point urges that the appellee was barred from recovery because the ap-pellee was not a l…
-
Foliage Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Watson, 381 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…unless the evidence thereof is in writing, subscribed by the party or his attorney against whom it is alleged . . Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Curcie Brothers, Inc., 174 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). . Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.100(a); Sorensen v. Eshelman, 202 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Tax v. Keiser, 328 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). . The instruction was as follows: It is your duty to determine and assess the damages which resulted from the removal of the stock plants which is the difference in the market…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fink v. Ira L. Powsner, 108 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Gordon Int'l Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte Cnty. Land & Title Co., 170 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- City OF Hialeah v. Revels, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)