Wiseman v. Stocks, 87-79
| Decision Date | 24 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-79,87-79 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1476,527 So.2d 904 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1476 Eric D. WISEMAN, Appellant, v. John R. STOCKS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles W. Dodson of Charles W. Dodson, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Wiseman appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Stocks following a hearing on Wiseman's motion for default judgment on his claim for breach of contract damages, contending that the entry of such judgment was error because, in reaching its conclusion that Wiseman had failed to satisfy all conditions precedent to the contract, the court had no right to rely upon evidence taken at the hearing on the ground that Stocks' default had the effect of admitting the truth of the allegations in Wiseman's complaint, representing that he had complied with all conditions precedent to the contract. We agree and reverse and remand with directions that judgment be entered in favor of Wiseman.
Stocks and Wiseman agreed upon a contract whereby Wiseman would assign to Stocks all of his interest in a certain stock option contract entitling him to purchase a number of shares of common stock in a closely-held corporation owned by Stocks, in exchange for fee simple title from Stocks to a one-half acre lot located on St. George Island. The contract further provided that if Stocks were unable to deliver clear title to the lot within one year from the date of the contract, Stocks would pay Wiseman, within thirty days thereafter, the sum of $80,000. After the requisite time limitations had expired, a complaint was filed, with a copy of the contract attached, wherein it was alleged that Stocks had failed to accomplish delivery of clear title to the lot in question; that Wiseman had satisfied all conditions precedent to the contract; therefore Stocks owed Wiseman the sum of $80,000, together with prejudgment interest.
Following the entry of the default by the clerk, Wiseman moved for default judgment. At the hearing on the motion, the court raised the question concerning whether Wiseman had complied with an essential condition precedent to his right to damages: the execution by him of a written assignment of his stock to the defendant pursuant to the clause of the contract requiring Wiseman to assign to Stocks all of his interest in the option contract. In its final judgment finding in favor of Stocks, the court held that "the requisite to final judgment consequent to a default is proof of the relief sought." (e.s.) It continued that
examination of the contract sued upon reveals that the contract is executory in nature. While the Plaintiff has alleged in his Complaint that he has satisfied all conditions precedent to the contract, the evidence presented at the hearing reveals that Plaintiff never executed an assignment of his interest in the Option Contract to Defendant. Such an assignment was the only act required by Plaintiff under the terms of the subject contract.
(e.s.)
The lower court's reliance upon evidence disclosing that Wiseman had failed to satisfy as an essential condition precedent the assignment of his interest in the option contract to Stocks was, under the circumstances at bar, erroneous. As previously observed, Wiseman's complaint generally alleged that he had satisfied all conditions precedent to the contract. By his default, Stocks admitted the truth of this allegation; accordingly the lower court had no legal right to consider evidence relating to the issue of whether Wiseman had performed a condition essential to his right to recover damages.
The type of evidence submitted at a hearing on a motion for judgment of default is governed by the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(e), permitting the trial court to take evidence if necessary "to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment ... or to make an investigation of any other matter to enable the court to enter judgment...." The effect of the rule is to allow the court to accept such allegations and their fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Signora v. Liberty Travel, Inc.
...1071, 1076 (Utah 1998); American Towers Owners Assoc. v. CCI Mechanical, Inc., 930 P.2d 1182, 1194 (Utah 1996); Wiseman v. Stocks, 527 So.2d 904, 906 (Florida 1st DCA 1988). ¶ 7 The Oregon Supreme Court, in so ruling, cited a 1975 opinion written by our Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in su......
-
Steelcase, Inc. v. Office Interiors of Florida, Inc., Case No. 3D05-1877 (Fla. App. 6/14/2006)
...claim for common law indemnity lies only where party seeking indemnity is not actively negligent); see generally Wiseman v. Stocks, 527 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)(citing to comments in 10 C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 2d § 2688 at 445, 447-48 (19......
-
Disbursement of surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale - the urban myth of the race to the courthouse.
...civil case, the failure to respond is deemed an admission of the allegations of the complaint. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500; Wiseman v. Stocks, 527 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In the foreclosure context, when a junior creditor fails to respond to a senior creditor's complaint, all this means i......