Britt v. City of Jacksonville

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Britt v. City of Jacksonville

770 So. 2d 257, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13854, 2000 WL 1624525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-4062

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 770 So. 2d 257 (Britt v. City of Jacksonville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Britt v. City of Jacksonville, 770 So. 2d 257, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13854, 2000 WL 1624525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed Valerie Britt’s complaint, finding that Britt failed to establish her standing. The trial court never reached the merits of this issue; instead, the court relied on the doctrine of res judicata raised by appellees in a motion to dismiss. The dismissal order is fatally defective because a defendant generally cannot raise the defense of res judicata for the first time in a motion to dismiss. See Byrd v. City of Niceville, 541 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding that “[t]he issue of res judicata is an affirmative defense, and affirmative defenses cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading in the case demonstrate their existence”); Holley v. Universal Rental Props., Inc., 416 So.2d 861, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding that ‘Tilt is settled law that where the defense [258]*258of res judicata does not appear on the face of the pleading, it may not be raised on a motion to dismiss, but must be plead and proved as an affirmative defense”). No exception to the general rule applies here.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial court dismissed Valerie Britt’s complaint, finding that Britt failed to establish her standing. The trial court never reached the merits of this issue; instead, the court relied on the doctrine of res judicata raised by appellees in a motion to dismiss. The dismissal order is fatally defective because a defendant generally cannot raise the defense of res judicata for the first time in a motion to dismiss. See Byrd v. City of Niceville, 541 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding that “[t]he issue of res judicata is an affirmative defense, and affirmative defenses cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading in the case demonstrate their existence”); Holley v. Universal Rental Props., Inc., 416 So.2d 861, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding that ‘Tilt is settled law that where the defense [258]*258of res judicata does not appear on the face of the pleading, it may not be raised on a motion to dismiss, but must be plead and proved as an affirmative defense”). No exception to the general rule applies here.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 257, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13854, 2000 WL 1624525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-city-of-jacksonville-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack