Cady v. Chevy Chase Sav. and Loan, Inc.
1988 WL 73608, 528 So. 2d 136 (1988)
Rule of Law:
Affirmative defenses must be pled with particularity, setting forth ultimate facts rather than mere conclusions of law, to be legally sufficient and withstand a motion for summary judgment.
Facts:
- In May 1984, Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik purchased three condominium units at Galt Ocean Club Development, Inc.
- These condominium units were marketed and sold as part of a hotel management program intended to generate profit and a significant return.
- The purchase of these units was financed by B.F. Saul Mortgage Company.
- The loans for the condominium units were subsequently assigned to Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 14, 1986, Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc. filed a complaint in a trial court to foreclose the mortgages on the condominium units.
- Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik filed an answer and affirmative defenses.
- Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc. filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.
- Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik filed a Motion To Amend Pleading, seeking leave to file a counterclaim, a third-party claim, and a cross-claim.
- After a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, during which the trial court indicated its intent to grant summary judgment, the parties stipulated to an agreed order denying Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik's Motion to Amend Pleadings without prejudice.
- The trial court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc., specifically holding that Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik's affirmative defenses failed as a matter of law to state defenses to the complaint.
- Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik (appellants) appealed the final summary judgment of foreclosure to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc. when Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik's affirmative defenses were deemed legally insufficient for lacking particularity and ultimate facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Downey, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment, because Robert M. Cady and Clara P. Pulkownik's affirmative defenses were legally insufficient as a matter of law. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's actions. The record showed that the denial of Cady and Pulkownik's motion to amend pleadings was agreed to without prejudice, meaning they could refile it later. Furthermore, Cady and Pulkownik never requested leave to amend their affirmative defenses, even in their petition for rehearing after summary judgment was granted. Upon careful analysis, the court determined that the affirmative defenses were, on the whole, conclusory and lacked specific allegations of ultimate fact necessary to demonstrate a good defense. Specifically, allegations of fraud were not pled with the required particularity, as precedent dictates (citing Gordon v. Etue, Wardlaw & Co., P.A. and Reina v. Gingerale Corp.). Similarly, negligence allegations were bare conclusions, failing to specify the act or omission causing damage (citing Rishel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.). An allegation that the loan was illegal was also deemed conclusory, lacking ultimate facts to show illegality. Finally, claims of false representations were insufficient because they did not designate which representations were false or who made them. The court emphasized that certainty is required in pleading defenses, and conclusions of law unsupported by ultimate facts are legally insufficient (citing Bliss v. Carmona and 40 Fla.Jur.2d Pleadings).
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strict pleading requirements for affirmative defenses in Florida, particularly those alleging fraud or negligence. It serves as a clear reminder that litigants must move beyond boilerplate language and general conclusions, instead providing concrete, 'ultimate facts' to substantiate their defenses. This standard ensures that opposing parties and the court are adequately informed of the specific claims, promoting fair discovery and efficient resolution of disputes. The ruling underscores that a failure to plead with sufficient particularity can lead to the dismissal of defenses and the granting of summary judgment, even if the underlying substantive claim might have merit had it been properly presented.
