BETTY CHANCE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALTON RAYMOND CHANCE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, 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.
Betty Chance appealed the trial court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a trust dispute with her former spouse and co-trustee Alton Chance. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly granted the motion because disputed factual allegations in the pleadings precluded judgment as a matter of law.
The trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings because disputed factual allegations in the pleadings precluded judgment as a matter of law. The motion should be evaluated using the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, and the court cannot consider matters outside the pleadings when deciding such motions.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only if the pleadings, taken as true, demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of la…
[2] A court may not consider matters outside the pleadings when ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
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“Upon review of the allegations contained in appellant's complaint and those in appellee's answer, we conclude that the lower court erred in granting appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
Establishes that the trial court's grant of the motion for judgment on the pleadings was erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetty and Alton Chance, formerly married, are co-trustees of a family trust containing both real and personal property. Betty alleged that Alton viola…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting motion for judgment on pleadings in an action where appellant alleged that appellee had violated the terms of a trust agreement executed by the parties.
Appellant and . appellee, formerly married, are co-trustees of a trust of family property, both real and personal. Appellant’s complaint alleged that appellee had violated the terms of the trust agreement by (1) not re-investing or dividing equally with appellant net income from investment of trust property, (2) not paying alimony and child support from farming income, (3) not reinvesting or dividing equally income obtained from selling or renting property in the trust corpus, (4) not providing an annual accounting, (5) not paying fire insurance premiums on the home appellant lived in, and (6) selling trust property without appellant’s written consent. Appellee denied all but three of the allegations. He admitted he had refused an accounting, stating that none was necessary as there had never been any trust income; he admitted not paying fire insurance premiums but denied that such was his obligation. He denied not paying alimony and child support.
Upon review of the allegations contained in appellant’s complaint and those in appellee’s answer, we conclude that the lower court erred in granting appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The test to be applied in determining the propriety of granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as if the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state the cause of action. Butts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Moreover, before granting such motion, the court may not consider matters outside the pleadings. Miller v. Eatmon, 177 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).
Accordingly the order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Varner v. B. L. Lanier Fruit Co., Inc., 370 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…orida Statutes (1975). The test to be applied in determining the propriety of a judgment on the pleadings for the defendant is the same as if the defendant had moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Chance v. Chance, 362 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Upon the principles set forth above the grower clearly alleged a cause of action.2 REVERSED and REMANDED. OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur. . We recognize that the grower is now $1,000 ahead because he has received $16,000 for $15,…
Authorities Cited
- Butts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Reserve Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Miller v. George C. Eatmon et ux., 177 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)