Kitchen v. Kitchen
404 So. 2d 203 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a reply to an affirmative defense is only required when the opposing party seeks to assert new matter to avoid the defense. If a party does not seek to avoid the affirmative defense, the averments are automatically taken as denied and no reply is required or permitted.
Facts:
- Eskell H. Kitchen (the husband) and Edith D. Kitchen (the wife) entered into a stipulated property settlement agreement during their marriage dissolution proceedings.
- A final judgment of dissolution was entered, which incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement, including an award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife.
- Following the dissolution, the husband experienced a substantial reduction in his income.
- Concurrently, the wife obtained employment and began earning her own income.
Procedural Posture:
- Eskell H. Kitchen (the husband) filed a petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution in the trial court.
- Edith D. Kitchen (the wife) filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied.
- The wife then filed an answer containing an affirmative defense stating that the matters were settled by the prior property settlement agreement.
- The husband did not file a reply to the affirmative defense.
- Seven months later, the wife filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the husband's failure to reply constituted an admission of her defense.
- The husband then filed a belated response denying the affirmative defense, which the wife moved to strike.
- The trial court granted the wife's motion to strike the husband's response and granted her motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The husband (appellant) appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, with the wife as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a), is a party required to file a reply to an affirmative defense when that party does not seek to avoid the defense with new allegations of fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Boardman, Acting Chief Judge
No, a party is not required to file a reply to an affirmative defense when that party does not seek to avoid it. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a) mandates a reply only when the opposing party seeks to 'avoid' the affirmative defense by introducing new facts. A simple denial is distinct from an avoidance. Per Rule 1.110(e), averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required, such as an affirmative defense one merely wishes to deny, are automatically taken as denied. The husband was not trying to introduce new facts to circumvent the wife's defense (avoidance); he was simply denying its legal effect. Therefore, no reply was required, and the wife's affirmative defense was deemed denied as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical aspect of Florida pleading practice, distinguishing between 'denial' and 'avoidance' of an affirmative defense. It prevents parties from securing judgment on the pleadings through a procedural trap when an opponent fails to file a reply that is not legally necessary. The ruling reinforces that silence in the face of an affirmative defense operates as a denial, not an admission, thereby promoting judicial efficiency by limiting required pleadings to only those that introduce new substantive matters for the court's consideration.
