Case Name: Marion SIMCOX and Mary Simcox, Appellants, v. Robert H. WIGGINS, as Successor in Interest to Wiggins & Wiggins, P.A., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-12-12
Citations: 557 So. 2d 56
Docket Number: No. 88-1722
Parties: Marion SIMCOX and Mary Simcox, Appellants, v. Robert H. WIGGINS, as Successor in Interest to Wiggins & Wiggins, P.A., Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 557
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Marion SIMCOX and Mary Simcox, Appellants, v. Robert H. WIGGINS, as Successor in Interest to Wiggins & Wiggins, P.A., Appellee.
No. 88-1722.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 12, 1989.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1990.
Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, and Ar-naldo Velez, Miami, for appellants.
Elena Moure-Domecq, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.

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.