JOSEPH E. BARENTINE AND RUTH S. BARENTINE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALBERT C. CLEMENTS, 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.
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the trial court granted a judgment on the pleadings against the defendants, striking their affirmative defense that an extension agreement provided valuable consideration. The appellate court reversed, holding that the allegation of valuable consideration raised a factual issue precluding judgment on the pleadings.
The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendants' allegation that the extension agreement was executed for valuable consideration raised a factual issue that precluded judgment on the pleadings. The court held that for purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded facts in the non-moving party's pleadings must be admitted.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of a cause of action or defense when the facts are undisputed.
[2] For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded facts in the non-moving party's pleadings are admitted.
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“For the purpose of the motion, all well-pleaded facts in the non-moving party's pleadings are admitted.”
Establishes the standard that facts alleged in the defendant's pleadings must be accepted as true on a motion for judgment on the pleadings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbert Clements brought a mortgage foreclosure action against Joseph and Ruth Barentine. The Barentines admitted non-payment but denied default and as…
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 Motion To Strike Affirmative Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Albert Clements, appellee, brought an action to foreclose-a mortgage on certain real property owned by appellants, Joseph and Ruth Barentine. Appellants filed an answer in which they admitted non-payment but denied default. Appellants raised an affirmative defense. They alleged that an extension on the payments had been granted and the 'extention agreement reduced to writing.
Appellee moved for a “judgment on the pleadings,” contending that the extension agreement on its face showed a lack of consideration which entitled him to a judgment as a matter of law. The court treated the motion as a motion to strike affirmative defenses. The court granted the motion to strike, with appellants being granted leave to amend. Appellants’ amended answer stated that the extension contract was entered “for valuable consideration.” The contract itself made no mention of consideration..
The trial court found that the extension agreement was not binding on the parties since the appellants undertook no additional obligations. The court found that the term “for valuable consideration” was a conclusion of law. As a result it could not be considered in the determination of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. A final judgment was entered in favor of appellee. We reverse.
The purpose of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is to test the legal sufficiency of a cause of action or defense where there is no dispute as to the facts. Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Fla.App.1st, 1975, 306 So. 2d 568. For the purpose of the motion, all well-pleaded
facts in the non-moving party’s pleadings are admitted. Wilkins v. Tebbetts, Fla. App.3rd 1968, 216 So. 2d 477. Here the appellants raised an affirmative defense which they had the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence. Their allegation that the extension agreement was executed for valuable consideration raised an issue of fact that precluded a judgment on the pleadings. See Mayflower v. Suskind, Fla.App.3rd, 1959, 112 So. 2d 394. Appellees are, of course, free to utilize the various means of discovery at their disposal and seek a summary judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McNULTY, C. j., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 134 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…iting Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 280-81 (Fla.1976)). “The purpose of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is to test the legal sufficiency of a cause of action or defense where there is no dispute as to the facts.” Barentine v. Clements, 328 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (citing Bradham v. Hayes Enters., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)). A party can only obtain judgment on the pleadings if it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based solely on the pleadings and attachments thereto.…
-
Glen Garron, LLC v. Marla Buchwald, 210 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…udgment on the pleadings is to test the legal sufficiency of a cause of action or defense where there is no dispute as to the facts.” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. APT Sec. Servs., Inc., 134 So. 3d 477, 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (quoting Barentine v. Clements, 328 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)). We review the issue of whether a complaint states a cause of action de novo. Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Zorie, 146 So. 3d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Thompson v. Napotnik, 923 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)).…
-
Georgeta Miller v. Finizio & Finizio, P.A., 226 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ective Life Ins. Co., 951 So. 2d 884, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “The purpose of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is to test the legal sufficiency of a cause of action or defense where there is no dispute as to the facts.” Barentine v. Clements, 328 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). A motion for judgment on the pleadings “is similar to a motion to dismiss and raises only questions of law arising out of the pleadings.” Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 418 So. 2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA…
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
- Wilda H. Bradham v. Hayes Enters., Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, 112 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Wilkins v. Tebbetts, 216 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Belloff v. DS-MS, Inc., 216 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)