ROBERT M. ALLIGOOD ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BEACH BANK 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.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's dismissal of a counterclaim for reformation of guaranty instruments. The court held that a reformation counterclaim that is merely an alternative form of denying liability on a debt guarantee does not qualify as an equitable matter permitting interlocutory review when the underlying action involves only legal issues.
The interlocutory appeal is dismissed. A counterclaim for reformation that is substantially equivalent to an affirmative defense of payment and is merely a different form of denying liability on the guaranty is not a civil action formerly cognizable in equity and does not qualify for interlocutory appellate review, even though reformation is traditionally an equitable remedy.
[1] An interlocutory appeal is not proper when the sole jurisdictional ground is the dismissal of a counterclaim for reformation that is substantially equivalent to striking…
[2] A counterclaim for reformation, which raises issues integral to the authenticity of instruments forming the basis of a principal action at law, is not considered a civil…
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“Because the counterclaim for reformation raises between the same parties issues integral to the authenticity of the instruments on which the principal action is based and is by another name a denial or avoidance of liability, we will not regard it as a civil action "that, from the subject matter or relief sought, [is] such as formerly [was] cognizable in equity."”
Establishes the court's rationale for refusing to treat the reformation counterclaim as an equitable matter despite its traditional equitable character.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued defendants on their alleged guaranty of debts. Defendants filed responsive pleadings containing affirmative defenses (including paymen…
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 Equitable Reformation cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Defendants present this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 4.2, F.A.R., in an action on their alleged guaranty of another’s debts. The plaintiff creditor’s complaint was not formerly cognizable in equity. Defendants’ responsive pleading contained several affirmative defenses, including one of payment according to terms of the guaranties as interpreted by defendants, and two counterclaims, one of which prayed for equitable reformation of the guaranty instruments according to defendants’ view of their intended effect. The trial court struck all affirmative defenses and dismissed the counterclaims. Then followed defendants’ interlocutory appeal and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
The question is whether we shall review on interlocutory appeal the sufficiency of the counterclaim for reformation, a matter formerly cognizable in equity, notwithstanding that the principal action, the stricken defenses and the other dismissed counterclaim all raised matters at law. We have dispensed with oral argument.
An interlocutory appeal such as this raises substantial questions, not yet entirely resolved, concerning the trial court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the case at hand. Willey v.
W. J. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446, 105 So. 126 (1925); De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla.1974).
Both delay and piecemeal review would result from entertaining this particular interlocutory appeal, in which the sole jurisdictional ground is the trial court’s dismissal of a reformation counterclaim which is substantially equivalent to striking — by an order not reviewable by interlocutory appeal — the affirmative defense of payment. The counterclaim would, if sustained, defeat the main action at law. Because the counterclaim for reformation raises between the same parties issues integral to the authenticity of the instruments on which the principal action is based and is by another name a denial or avoidance of liability, we will not regard it as a civil action “that, from the subject matter or relief sought, [is] such as formerly [was] cognizable in equity.” Rule 4.2a, F.A.R. The toll in delay and displacement of the trial court’s adjudicatory power is too great. Cf. S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Meadows v. Ward, 306 So. 2d 179 (Fla. App.2d, 1975).
The motion will be granted and the interlocutory appeal
DISMISSED.
McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1925)
- Shuron Hester v. State, 312 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- DE LA Portilla v. DE LA Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1974)
- Meadows v. Ward, 306 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)