Ray v. Elks Lodge 1870 of Stuart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ray v. Elks Lodge 1870 of Stuart

649 So. 2d 292, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 237, 1995 WL 15623

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1995

DocketNo. 93-2757

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 649 So. 2d 292 (Ray v. Elks Lodge 1870 of Stuart) 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

Ray v. Elks Lodge 1870 of Stuart, 649 So. 2d 292, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 237, 1995 WL 15623 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

PARIENTE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of dismissal entered pursuant to defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. This case arises out of a real estate transaction. Plaintiff, who filed his complaint pro se, alleged breaches of written and oral contracts and fraud in the inducement. Defendants admitted they breached the contract by not purchasing plaintiffs property. Defendants’ affirmative defenses raised the existence of a liquidated damages provision limiting plaintiffs damages under the contract. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, stating [293]*293that the agreed-upon damages for breach was the forfeiture of the deposit.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c) is a very limited procedural device. The motion must be decided on the pleadings without reference to facts which may be properly considered under other procedural vehicles and without the aid of outside matters. Skubal v. Cooley, 639 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); McKinzie v. Hollywood, Inc., 421 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 431 So.2d 989 (Fla.1983). A judgment on the pleadings should be granted only when the party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law based solely on the pleadings. McKinzie.

No reply was filed to the affirmative defenses. Accordingly, all affirmative defenses are deemed denied, including those defenses directed to the liquidated damages clause. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(e). In addition, assuming the liquidated damages clause is valid, the clause does not constitute a defense to a claim for fraud in the inducement. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, we conclude that entry of a judgment on the pleadings was erroneous.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STEVENSON, J., concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PARIENTE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of dismissal entered pursuant to defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. This case arises out of a real estate transaction. Plaintiff, who filed his complaint pro se, alleged breaches of written and oral contracts and fraud in the inducement. Defendants admitted they breached the contract by not purchasing plaintiffs property. Defendants’ affirmative defenses raised the existence of a liquidated damages provision limiting plaintiffs damages under the contract. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, stating [293]*293that the agreed-upon damages for breach was the forfeiture of the deposit.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c) is a very limited procedural device. The motion must be decided on the pleadings without reference to facts which may be properly considered under other procedural vehicles and without the aid of outside matters. Skubal v. Cooley, 639 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); McKinzie v. Hollywood, Inc., 421 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 431 So.2d 989 (Fla.1983). A judgment on the pleadings should be granted only when the party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law based solely on the pleadings. McKinzie.

No reply was filed to the affirmative defenses. Accordingly, all affirmative defenses are deemed denied, including those defenses directed to the liquidated damages clause. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(e). In addition, assuming the liquidated damages clause is valid, the clause does not constitute a defense to a claim for fraud in the inducement. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, we conclude that entry of a judgment on the pleadings was erroneous.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STEVENSON, J., concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 So. 2d 292, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 237, 1995 WL 15623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-elks-lodge-1870-of-stuart-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack