Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. T--398,T--398 |
| Citation | 306 So.2d 568 |
| Parties | Wilda H. BRADHAM, Appellant, v. HAYES ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John W. Hamilton, of Ware, Osborne, Hamilton & Woodruff, St. Petersburg, A. Z. Adkins, Jr., Gainesville, and Woodie A. Liles of Hobbs, DeLaParte & Liles, Tampa, for appellant.
James S. Quincey and Charles G. Felder of Clayton, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton, Quincey, Ireland & Felder, Gainesville, for appellee.
Appellant filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, that appellant's father and brother contacted her, advising that they were desirous of purchasing a certain tract of real estate which would require an initial binder payment of $3,000 and that if she would provide, or have an acquaintance provide, such sum then appellant 'would become the fee simple owner of a 1/2 interest' in said property: 'And that the plaintiff did, in fact, induce one Jean R. Conlin, to loan and who thereupon did loan the sum of $3,000 that enabled the initial binder to be made on the purchase of said real estate'; that appellant's said brother and father did thereafter, unbeknownst to appellant, cause appellee corporation to be formed, appellant's brother being the sole stockholder thereof; that the property was in fact acquired, but in the name of the corporation without the knowledge of appellant; both the brother and father repeatedly acknowledged that appellant owned an undivided 1/2 interest in said property and promised to execute appropriate documents reflecting such interest but that no such documents were ever executed and both the brother and father are now deceased. The prayer of the complaint sought various relief, including a request that the court 'impress a trust upon the property held by' appellee.
Appellee filed an answer admitting formation of the corporation, that title to the subject property was held in the name of the corporation, that appellant's brother and father were deceased, that all of the shares of the stock in the corporation were issued to appellant's brother, but denied the other material allegations of the complaint. There was no specific reference in appellee's answer to the $3,000 binder payment referred to in the complaint.
Appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. When that motion came on for hearing plaintiff, appellant here, requested permission to file an amended complaint, alleging that her cause of action could be more specifically pleaded. The trial court thereupon entered an order entitled 'Order Dismissing Complaint.' In that order appears the following recitation:
'ORDERED as follows:
At a subsequent hearing on the defendants' (appellees') motion for rehearing, the trial court entered an 'Amended Order of Dismissal' by which it vacated its prior order of dismissal giving leave to amend, granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and recited that
Appellant urges on this appeal that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings and in refusing to permit appellant an opportunity to file an amended complaint. We agree and reverse.
We first observe that the trial court erred in the entry of an order of dismissal when ruling upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings. A motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings are not the same and are not governed by the same rules of procedure. (Davis v. Davis, Fla.App.1st 1960, 123 So.2d 377) A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be determined On the pleadings. (For a thorough discussion on the meaning of the term 'pleadings' see Metcalf v. Langston, Fla.App.1st 1974, 296 So.2d 81, cert. den., Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 302 So.2d 414) The purpose of the motion for judgment on the pleadings is to permit a trial judge to examine the allegations of the bare pleadings and determine whether there are any issues of fact Based thereon. If the bare pleadings reveal that there are no facts to be resolved by a trier of facts then the trial judge is authorized to enter a judgment based upon the uncontroverted facts appearing from the pleadings as applied to the applicable law. Needless to say, if the pleadings reveal issues of fact then a judgment on the pleadings may not be properly entered.
The primary difference between a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment is that in determining the propriety of the entry of a judgment on the pleadings the trial judge may not look beyond the pleadings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida First Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville
...Cross Association, Fla.App.1st 1974, 293 So.2d 90; Thomas v. Rollins, Fla.App.1st 1974, 298 So.2d 186; and Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1975, 306 So.2d 568.3 The Modlin opinion is carefully worded and the guidelines established by the Supreme Court of Florida are there se......
-
Farag v. National Databank Subscriptions, Inc.
...Apartments, Inc. v. Braemar Corp., 313 So.2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 31 (Fla.1976); Bradham v. Hayes Enterprises, Inc., 306 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). For instance, in counts II and V, plaintiffs allege they were fraudulently induced to enter into the contractua......
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Adt Sec. Servs., Inc., 2D12–1956.
...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 t......
-
Graff v. McNeil, X--254
...RCP3 Rule 1.420 RCP4 Rule 1.140 RCP5 See Dawson v. Blue Cross Association, Fla.App.1st 1974, 293 So.2d 90; Bradham v. Haynes Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1975, 306 So.2d 568 and Forrest v. Carter, Fla.App.1st 1975, 308 So.2d 141.6 The procedural propriety of the entry of the summary judgm......