Simcox v. Wiggins

557 So. 2d 56, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6977, 1989 WL 149644
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 12, 1989·No. No. 88-1722·Published

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

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

557 So. 2d 56 (Simcox v. Wiggins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Emile v. First National Bank of Miami
126 So. 2d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Allie v. Ionata
503 So. 2d 1237 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)