MICHAEL PELLE AND LINDA PELLE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRIET GLUCKMAN AND ESTATE OF EDWARD GOTTEHRER, 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.
The Pelles appealed from a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of Gluckman on her counterclaim for malicious prosecution. The court reversed, holding that because the Pelles denied the essential elements of malice and lack of probable cause, judgment on the pleadings was improper and those issues required proof at trial.
It was error to grant judgment on the pleadings because the material allegations of malice and want of probable cause were placed in issue by the Pelles' denials and therefore required proof by the counterclaimant at trial.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings requires that all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false.
[2] To succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish the absence of probable cause and the presence of malice.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Among the elements necessary to be established in order to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution are the absence of probable cause and the presence of malice.”
Establishes the essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim that must be proven
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Pelles filed a replevin action against Harriet Gluckman for a diamond ring valued at $6,500. Gluckman's answer asserted the ring had been pledged …
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 Judgment On The Pleadings Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the plaintiffs below from an adverse judgment on a counterclaim, entered upon granting a motion of counter-claimant for judgment on the pleadings relating to the counterclaim.
The appellants filed an action against the appellee Harriet Gluckman for replevin of a diamond ring valued at $6,500. A motion of the defendant Gluckman to dismiss the complaint was denied. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and, for affirmative defenses averred the ring had been given to her by Edward Gottehrer, by then deceased,1 and that prior to the filing of the replevin action she had sold the ring, upon instructions from Gottehrer to do so. The defendant *34further averred the ring had been pledged by the plaintiffs to Gottehrer for a loan to them by him of $3,500.
Included in the answer of the defendant Gluckman was a counterclaim, alleging the plaintiffs had not paid or offered to repay the loan for which the ring had been pledged; that plaintiffs had conspired to defame the defendant by making known they would have the counter-plaintiff deported; that plaintiffs had caused a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the defendant charging her with larceny of the ring, resulting in arrest of the defendant; that the charge had been dismissed by a justice of the peace (attaching a copy of the transcript of the hearing before the peace justice) ; that such action by plaintiffs was “done wantonly and maliciously and without probable cause,” as an effort to coerce a return of the ring. The counterclaim prayed for damages based thereon.
By answer to the counterclaim the plaintiffs denied the allegations of the counterclaim, thereby placing in issue the material allegations thereof that the criminal process had been caused to be issued by the plaintiffs with malice and without probable cause.
With the benefit of the evidence represented by the record of the proceedings before the peace justice, the defendant Gluck-man moved for summary judgment on her counterclaim. That motion was denied.
Thereafter the counterclaimant Gluck-man moved for judgment on the pleadings. That motion was granted and a partial summary judgment on liability was entered in favor of the counterclaimant Gluckman against the counter-defendants Michael Pelle and Linda Pelle, his wife, with jurisdiction reserved for subsequent determination of damages to be awarded to the coun-terclaimant.
Among the elements necessary to be established in order to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution are the absence of probable cause and the presence of malice. Kest v. Nathanson, Fla.App.1969, 216 So.2d 233, 235; Silvia v. Zayre Corporation, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 856, 858. Here, by denials in the answers to the counterclaim, the material allegations of malice and want of probable cause were placed in issue, so as to require proof thereof by the counterclaimant. Town of North Miami v. State ex rel. Watson, 156 Fla. 340, 22 So.2d 762.
Rule 1.140(c) FRCP, 30 F.S.A., provides for motions for judgment on the pleadings as follows: “After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
On consideration of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the facts shown by the pleadings control, and in determining such facts all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false. Paradise Pools, Inc. v. Genauer, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 860, 861; Storer v. Florida Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 433; Greater Miami Telephone Answering Service v. A-1 Answering Service, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 619; Butts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 73, 75; Homer v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 250; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings § 129.
We hold, therefore, it was error to grant the motion of the counterclaimant Gluck-man for judgment on the pleadings, and the judgment appealed from is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yunkers, 515 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…his appeal followed.1 In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings material allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false. Krieger v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., 387 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Pelle v. Gluckman, 269 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Homer v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 211 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert, discharged, 220 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1969). Conclusions of law also are not deemed admitted for purposes of the motion. Miller v. Eatmon, 177 So. 2d 523…
-
Maszewski v. Piskadlo, 318 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…rits of the issues presented. On a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 1.140(c) the truth of the allegations of the party opposing the motion, in this case, the plaintiff’s complaint, must be assumed, Pelle v. Gluckman, Fla.App.3d 1972, 269 So. 2d 33, 34. Statements in the pleading of the movant, here, the answer, are deemed to be untrue. City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman, Fla.App.4th 1969, 228 So. 2d 610. The essential question before us, then, is whether the complaint states a cause of action fo…
-
City OF Hallandale v. Leisure Colony Mgmt. Corp. & Dubussey Realty N. V., 358 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1978)…ken as true, and all allegations of Leisure Colony’s complaint that have been denied are taken as false. Conclusions of law are not deemed admitted. AIA Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. Brevard County, 246 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Pelle v. Gluckman, 269 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Also, the decision of the District Court of Appeal in the case sub judice affirming the trial court’s judgment that the off-street parking ordinance is a zoning ordinance, is in conflict with City of Miami Beach v. 100 Lincoln R…
Authorities Cited
- Butts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Reserve Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Kest v. Nathanson, 216 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Paradise Pools, Inc. v. Genauer, 104 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Silvia v. Zayre Corp., 233 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Porter W. Homer v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 211 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Greater Miami Tel. Answering Serv. v. A-1 Answering Serv., 141 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Town OF N. Miami v. State, 156 Fla. 340 (Fla. 1945)
- Storer v. Fla. Sportservice, Inc., 115 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Craton v. DeWITT Sinclair, 156 Fla. 341 (Fla. 1945)
- Chateau Enters., Inc. v. Earnest Overstreet, 115 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)