Simcox v. Wiggins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Simcox v. Wiggins

557 So. 2d 56, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6977, 1989 WL 149644

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1722

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 56 (Simcox v. Wiggins) 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

Simcox v. Wiggins, 557 So. 2d 56, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6977, 1989 WL 149644 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Marion and Mary Simcox, defendants below, appeal a summary final judgment against them in an action to recover legal fees. We reverse.

The Simcoxes answered the complaint, and pled several affirmative defenses, including recoupment. Plaintiff/appellee Wiggins & Wiggins, P.A., moved for summary judgment. Wiggins argued that re-coupment was not a good defense, reasoning that the claim of recoupment was barred by the statute of limitations. On that issue Wiggins was in error. See Allie v. Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fla.1987). It follows that, at least on the present record, the recoupment defense was not negated, see Emile v. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 126 So.2d 305, 306-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), and summary judgment should not have been entered.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Marion and Mary Simcox, defendants below, appeal a summary final judgment against them in an action to recover legal fees. We reverse.

The Simcoxes answered the complaint, and pled several affirmative defenses, including recoupment. Plaintiff/appellee Wiggins & Wiggins, P.A., moved for summary judgment. Wiggins argued that re-coupment was not a good defense, reasoning that the claim of recoupment was barred by the statute of limitations. On that issue Wiggins was in error. See Allie v. Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fla.1987). It follows that, at least on the present record, the recoupment defense was not negated, see Emile v. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 126 So.2d 305, 306-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), and summary judgment should not have been entered.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 56, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6977, 1989 WL 149644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simcox-v-wiggins-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack