AMERICAN HOUSING SYSTEMS CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTRY CLUB OF MIAMI CORPORATION, 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.
American Housing Systems appealed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Country Club of Miami on a promissory note. The court reversed, holding that judgment on the pleadings was improper because the defendant had adequately pleaded affirmative defenses of duress and lack of consideration that precluded summary judgment.
Judgment on the pleadings does not lie when a defendant denies default and sets up affirmative defenses of duress and lack of consideration, as the plaintiff would be required to admit these facts and would not be entitled to judgment on such facts.
[1] A judgment on the pleadings is improper when the defendant's answer denies default on a promissory note and raises affirmative defenses such as duress and lack of conside…
[2] A party moving for judgment on the pleadings must admit the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the adversary's pleadings, including denials of the movant's allegations.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The moving party, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings admits for purposes of the motion the facts well pleaded by his adversary despite their denial by the movant; the movant also admits the untruth of his own allegations which have been denied by his adversary.”
Establishes the legal standard for motions for judgment on the pleadings—the moving party must admit facts denied by the opponent and untruth of its own denied allegations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCountry Club of Miami sued American Housing Systems on a promissory note. American Housing Systems admitted executing the note but denied default and …
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 Lack Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
This case is an appeal from a judgment of $263,104.57 on a promissory note entered on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff, Country Club of Miami, in the Circuit Court of Dade County. The defendant, American Housing Systems, appeals.
The issue presented is whether a judgment on the pleadings lies in favor of a plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note where the defendant in his answer denies default on the note and sets up certain affirmative defenses of duress and lack of consideration. We hold that such a judgment on the pleadings does not lie and reverse.
Country Club of Miami brought suit in the Circuit Court of Dade County on a promissory note. It alleged in its complaint in count I that American Housing Systems had executed the note in its favor and thereafter had defaulted thereon. American Housing Systems filed an answer admitting that it had executed the note, but denying all other allegations in the complaint including allegations of default on the note. In addition, American Housing Systems set up the affirmative defense of lack of or failure of consideration. The answer also included a counterclaim asserting in detailed fashion that the note in question had been given under duress. That defense, mistakenly included in the counterclaim, was entitled to be treated as if it had been properly set forth in the answer as an affirmative defense. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.110(d); Mayflower v. Suskind, 112 So. 2d 394 (Fla.3d DCA 1959). Country Club of Miami filed a reply denying and moving to strike the affirmative defense of no consideration and failure of consideration.
Based solely on the above pleadings, Country Club of Miami made a motion for judgment on the pleadings which it orally confined to count I of the complaint when the motion was heard in the court below. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(c). The lower court granted the motion. On appeal, American Housing Systems contends that it was error to enter such a judgment on this state of the record. We agree. The moving party, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings admits for purposes of the motion the facts well pleaded by his adversary despite their denial by the movant; the movant also admits the untruth of his own allegations which have been denied by his adversary. Falick v. Sun N Sea, 81 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1955); Greater Miami Telephone Answering Service v. A-1 Answering Service, 141 So. 2d 619 (Fla.3d DCA 1962). Judgment on the pleadings lies only if on the facts so admitted the moving party is entitled to judgment. Miller v. Eatmon, 177 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1st DCA 1965).
In the instant case, Country Club of Miami was obliged to admit for purposes of its motion for judgment on the pleadings that American Housing Systems had executed a promissory note in favor of Country Club of Miami, that American Housing Systems had not defaulted on that note, and that the note was given under duress and without consideration. Country Club of Miami was clearly not entitled to judgment on these facts and the motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been denied. Mayflower v. Suskind, 112 So. 2d 394 (Fla.3d DCA 1959).
Country Club of Miami both in the court below and before this court seeks to go outside the pleadings and assert that American Housing Systems gave the promissory note herein in settlement of a prior lawsuit, that American Housing Systems has thereafter defaulted on the note, and the American Housing System may not now assert the affirmative defenses of duress or lack of consideration against a suit on the note. We express no opinion on the validity of such contentions as they are based on matters outside the pleadings and are not properly before the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
We further reject Country Club of Miami’s contention that counsel for American Housing Systems waived his affirmative defenses and conceded liability on the note in the court below. Such a contention is not supported by the record.
The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Country Club OF Miami Corp. v. Cent. Bank OF N. Dade, 346 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of American Housing Systems v. Country Club of Miami, 342 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1977).…
-
Rhita B. Behrman Interiors, Inc. v. Braman Cadillac, Inc., 407 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ial facts, and that appellee is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1976); American Housing Systems Corp. v. Country Club of Miami Corp., 342 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Barentine v. Clements, 328 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. George C. Eatmon et ux., 177 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, 112 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Falick v. SUN N SEA, Inc., 81 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1955)
- Greater Miami Tel. Answering Serv. v. A-1 Answering Serv., 141 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)