Wilkins v. Tebbetts, 68-801
| Citation | 216 So.2d 477 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-801,68-801 |
| Parties | W. J. WILKINS, Appellant, v. Lucy Mabel TEBBETTS, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Alfred Feinberg and Bruce S. Rogow, Miami, for appellant. at Eldon L. Boyce, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
Tebbetts, Wilkins' landlord, filed a complaint in the Civil Court of Record against Wilkins for unlawful detainer. Wilkins answered, alleging in pertinent part that the sole reason for the attempted eviction was to retaliate, punish, and harass him for having reported to the Miami Fire Department that the electrical system in his apartment was outmoded, inadequate, and dangerous. Wilkins claims that the Fire Department verified his complaint and gave notice to Tebbetts to have the system repaired. At this point Wilkins alleges that Tebbetts gave him notice of eviction.
The trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Tebbetts and Wilkins now appeals. Wilkins' sole argument on appeal is that a landlord may not evict a tenant solely because the tenant has informed appropriate governmental authorities that a housing code violation exists on leased premises. He does not seek reversal on any other questions of procedure, law, or fact.
In his brief, Wilkins has quoted and argued at considerable length from the South Florida Building Code and the Dade County Minimum Housing Code, but there is nothing in the record on appeal to show that these codes were properly introduced into evidence in the trial court, or that they were considered by the trial court. Both parties have attempted to set forth matters of fact which do not appear in the record on appeal.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits, for the purpose of the motion, all well-pleaded facts contained in the non-moving party's pleading. Miller v. Eatmon, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 523. Tebbetts thus admitted, for purposes of her motion, all facts well pleaded by Wilkins. The pleadings before the trial court were Tebbetts' complaint for unlawful detention, the notice attached thereto, and Wilkins' answer.
Fla.Stat. § 82.04, F.S.A. provides that:
'If any person enters or has entered in a peaceable manner into any lands or tenements when the entry is lawful and after the expiration of his right continues to hold them against the consent of the party entitled to possession, the party so entitled to possession is entitled to the summary procedure under section 51.011, Florida Statutes, at any time within three (3) years after the possession has been withheld from him against his consent.'
The summary procedure of Fla.Stat. § 51.011(1), F.S.A. requires that 'all defenses of law or fact shall be contained in the defendant's answer.'
We look, therefore, to see whether Wilkins' answer raised a proper defense to the unlawful detainer action. We assume for purposes of argument, but without so deciding, that equitable defenses may be raised in the answer to a complaint for unlawful detainer. See Harrell v. Martin, 117 Fla. 754, 158 So. 287 (1934), 35 Am.Jur.2d Forcible Entry and Detainer § 42.
The question then is whether the affirmative defense alleged by Wilkins in his answer would be a proper defense under the laws of Florida. Wilkins relies upon the rule pronounced in Edwards v. Habib, 397 F.2d 687 (D.C.Cir.1968); and Tarver v. G & C Construction Co., Civil #64-2945, E.D.N.Y. November 9, 1964. In Edwards, the court held that 'while the landlord may evict for any legal reason or for no reason at all, he is not, we hold, free to evict in retaliation for his tenants report of housing code violations to the authorities.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holmes
...79 So. 205; City of Miami v. Thigpen, 1943, 151 Fla. 800, 11 So.2d 300; Conrad v. Jackson, Fla.1959, 107 So.2d 369; Wilkins v. Tebbetts, Fla.App.3d 1968, 216 So.2d 477; Town of Medley v. Caplan, Fla.App.3d 1966, 191 So.2d 449. The Florida Bar, Evidence in Florida (Florida Practice Manual No......
-
Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout
...Court, 30 Cal.3d 244, 636 P.2d 582, 178 Cal.Rptr. 618 (1981); Alteri v. Layton, 35 Conn.Supp. 261, 408 A.2d 18 (1979); Wilkins v. Tebbetts, 216 So.2d 477 (Fla.App.1968), cert. dismissed, 222 So.2d 753 (Fla.1969); Windward Partners v. Delos Santos, 59 Haw. 104, 577 P.2d 326 (1978); Clore v. ......
-
Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont
...Portnoy v. Hill, 57 Misc.2d 1097, 294 N.Y.S.2d 278 (1968); Dickhut v. Norton, 45 Wis.2d 389, 173 N.W.2d 297 (1970); Wilkins v. Tebbetts, 216 So.2d 477 (Fla.App.1968).4 Blades, Employment at Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 Colum.L.Rev. 1404......
-
Dockery v. Lampart Table Co.
...Portnoy v. Hill, 57 Misc.2d 1097, 294 N.Y.S.2d 278 (1968); Dickhut v. Norton, 45 Wis.2d 389, 173 N.W.2d 297 (1970); Wilkins v. Tebbetts, 216 So.2d 477 (Fla.App.1968). The court in Frampton further observed that one state had held a landlord's "retaliatory eviction" to be a sufficient basis ......