Nadeige Joseph v. Philippe Pierre

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1375
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 5, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1375 Lower Tribunal No. 22-90 CC ________________

Nadeige Joseph, Appellant,

vs.

Philippe Pierre, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge.

Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch (Hollywood), for appellant.

Borell Law and Richard M. Beckish, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Nadeige Joseph appeals from a judgment on the pleadings entered in an unlawful detainer action filed by Philippe Pierre seeking Joseph’s removal

from premises he owned. We reverse.

Pierre filed suit against Joseph because, according to the allegations

in the complaint, he revoked his consent for Joseph to be in possession of

the dwelling and she refused to vacate the premises. Joseph answered with

a general denial of the allegations of the complaint but without raising any

affirmative defenses. Pierre then moved for judgment on the pleadings and

Joseph responded. After a hearing, the court below granted the motion and

entered judgment in favor of Pierre. This appeal follows.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c), a party may move

for judgment on the pleadings once the pleadings are closed. “A motion for

judgment on the pleadings under Rule 1.140(c) raises only questions of law.

. . .” Whitaker v. Powers, 424 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). If the

motion is filed by a plaintiff, it tests the legal sufficiency of the answer and all

affirmative defenses. See Taylor v. Hanlex Dev., LLC, 274 So. 3d 512, 513

(Fla. 5th DCA 2019). When considering the motion, “[a]ll well-pleaded

allegations of the non-moving party are taken to be true, while those of the

movant that have been denied, are taken as not proved in determining the

motion.” Whitaker, 424 So. 2d at 155; see also Covert v. S. Florida Stadium

Corp., 762 So. 2d 938, 939–40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In ruling on a motion

2 for judgment on the pleadings material allegations of the moving party which

have been denied are taken as false.” (quoting Scarborough Assocs. v. Fin.

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Dade County, 647 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1994))).

Here, Joseph’s answer denied all allegations in the complaint.

Accordingly, Joseph’s denials had to be taken as true for purposes of Pierre’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Whitaker, 424 So. 2d at 155;

Covert, 762 So. 2d at 939–40. The judgment on the pleadings was therefore

erroneously entered and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.