Croft v. Young
| Decision Date | 26 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. H--148,H--148 |
| Citation | 188 So.2d 859 |
| Parties | M. L. CROFT, Appellant, v. L. W. YOUNG, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack A. Harnett, Tallahassee, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Appellant, who was defendant in the trial court, has appealed a final decree rendered in a suit to quiet title brought by appellee, which decree cancels, vacates, and sets aside a warranty deed executed by appellee which purports to convey to appellant a parcel of land in Jackson County.
Appellant first contends that the chancellor should have dismissed the cause on the affirmative showing that appellee's right to relief was barred under the doctrine of laches, equitable estoppel and estoppel by deed. An examination of the record on appeal reveals that the only defense interposed by appellant was an answer containing a general denial of the material allegations of the complaint. The answer does not assert the affirmative defenses of laches, equitable estoppel or estoppel by deed. It is established in this state that defenses such as those now urged by appellant are affirmative in nature and must be specifically pleaded in an answer to the complaint. 1 By her brief appellant tells us that the affirmative defenses above enumerated were raised in an oral motion to dismiss the complaint made immediately prior to the trial. There is nothing in the record to substantiate this assertion, but even if it were true, it would not support appellant's position. In the case of Fletcher v. Williams this court held that affirmative defenses may not be asserted as grounds for a motion to dismiss a complaint, even though the availability of the defense as a bar to the action may appear on the face of the complaint. 2 It is not contended that such affirmative defenses, even though not pleaded, were tried by the express or implied consent of the parties as permitted by the applicable rules of procedure. 3 Had such issues been tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, their legal significance as issues in the case could not now be considered for the reason that appellant has failed to include in the record on appeal the testimony adduced at the trial. Without a record of the evidence we are unable to determine whether such defenses were established as a matter of law.
By her second point on appeal appellant contends that the deed in controversy was duly executed by appellee, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Popwell v. Abel, 1442
...Co., Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 209.3 Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482.4 Rule 1.110(d) F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.5 Croft v. Young, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 859. However, please note that effective Jan. 1, 1967 this rule has been changed. See Rule 1.110(e), F.R.C.P. 1969.6 11 Am.Jur.2d ......
-
Aquarius Yacht and Tennis Club, Inc. v. Bouzek, 73-1480
...119 Fla. 638, 160 So. 663; Moyer v. Moyer, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 638; Downing v. Bird, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 559; Croft v. Young, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 859; Amrep Corporation v. Nicholson, Fla.App.1970, 249 So.2d 84; Orange Julius Realty Corporation v. Sunshine Toy Center, Inc., Fla.A......
-
Strode v. Strode
...3d DCA 1981); Watts v. Haun, 393 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Liberman v. Kelso, 354 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Croft v. Young, 188 So.2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Rosenblatt v. American Cyanamid, Co., 86 S.Ct. 1, 15 L.Ed.2d 39 (1965); Section 48.193 Florida Statutes ...
-
Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. State, Dept. of Corrections, PAN-AM
...of estoppel in this case. Pan-Am has failed to properly plead the elements of estoppel in its complaint or reply. Cf., Croft v. Young, 188 So.2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Further, estoppel is a remedy which has been sparingly invoked against the government and we see no reason to reverse the......