Falick v. Sun N Sea, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1955 |
| Citation | 81 So.2d 749 |
| Parties | Dorothy FALICK and Samuel Falick, Appellants, v. SUN N SEA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Schlissel & Scher, Miami Beach, and Louis Schneiderman, Miami, for appellants.
Wicker & Smith, Miami, for appellee.
Appellants', plaintiffs' in the trial court, appeal from a judgment on the pleadings entered for defendant.
February 18, 1954, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that an automobile owned by defendant was negligently driven against an automobile in which the plaintiff wife was riding and as a result of which the wife was injured. Damages were claimed for the wife and husband. In its answer defendant alleged that in the Small Claims Court of Dade County the same plaintiffs' on a cause of action arising out of the same accident obtained a judgment against the defendant for $288.92 plus costs which judgment was satisfied April 6, 1954. Copy of the satisfaction of the judgment was attached to the answer. Upon these facts defendant claimed the defenses of res judicata and splitting the cause of action. Pursuant to motion the court entered a final judgment on the pleadings for defendant.
Appellant contends here that, aside from the merit of the defenses of defendant, it was error to enter the final judgment on the record before the court because the defenses pleaded under applicable law were deemed denied and the complaint itself was sufficient to state a cause of action. For these reasons, it is urged, there was no basis for the entry of the final judgment. We agree.
This case is governed by the Florida Common Law Rules, effective January 1, 1950, 30 F.S.A., which were in effect when the complaint was filed. Rule 9(d) provides that res judicata is an affirmative defense. Rule 9(e) specifically provides, 'Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.' The effect of this rule is that when affirmative defenses are raised the facts pleaded thereby are deemed denied. Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 371. Rule 13(c) provides for motion for judgment on the pleadings where applicable. However, the function of this motion is no more than that of a demurrer. Such motion raises only questions of law arising out of the pleadings. The moving party admits for the purpose of the motion the facts well pleaded by his adversary despite their denial in the movant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dept. of Revenue and Taxation
...... Page 222 . though he has a federal contract. C.R. Frederick, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 38 Cal.App.3d 385, 120 Cal.Rptr. 434, 440 cert. denied 419 U.S. ......
-
Wagner v. Wagner
...The effect of this rule is that when an affirmative defense is raised the facts pleaded thereby are deemed denied. Falick v. Sun N Sea, Inc., Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 749. Florida R.C.P. 1.140(c), formerly Rule 1.11(c), provides that after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to ......
-
Jaramillo v. Dubow
...of res judicata, it is deemed to be denied, and therefore false. J & J Util. Co., 485 So.2d at 36-37; see also Falick v. Sun N Sea, Inc., 81 So.2d 749, 750 (Fla.1955); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.100(a), The defendant contends, however, that at the hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, th......
-
American Housing Systems Corp. v. Country Club of Miami Corp., 76--356
...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 pleadi......