Court Opinion

ID: 9902575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:20:14.211397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.758226
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D21-3187
                  LT Case No. 2014-CA-003112
                 _____________________________

GREEN GABLES APARTMENTS, II,
LTD.,

    Appellant,

    v.

AHG TAX CREDIT FUND XVIII,
LLC; TCIG GUARANTEED TAX
CREDIT FUND VI, LLC; WELLS
FARGO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; LAUREL PARK
APARTMENTS, LTD.; ET AL.,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Robert W. Hodges, Judge.

Ian C. White and Jonathan W. Hayes, of Ausley McMullen, P.A.,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Stacy D. Blank, Jason H. Baruch, Dominic Kouffman, Jessica S.
Kramer, and Avery A. Holloman, of Holland & Knight, LLP,
Tampa, for Appellees.

                       October 13, 2023

KILBANE, J.
     Green Gables Apartments, II, Ltd. (“Appellant”), appeals the
final summary judgment entered against it and in favor of AHG
Tax Credit Fund XVIII (“Appellee”). We affirm in all respects and
write only to address the importance of Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure 1.100(a) and 1.110(d).

    Florida’s pleading rules are readily ascertainable.         Rule
1.110(d) provides in relevant part:

         In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall
         set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction,
         arbitration and award, assumption of risk,
         contributory      negligence,     discharge       in
         bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of
         consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow
         servant, laches, license, payment, release, res
         judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations,
         waiver, and any other matter constituting
         an avoidance or affirmative defense.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (emphasis added). Moreover, “Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.100(a) requires that ‘[i]f an answer . . .
contains an affirmative defense and the opposing party seeks to
avoid it, the opposing party shall file a reply containing the
avoidance.’” Frisbie v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 162 So. 3d 1079,
1080–81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (alterations in original).
Importantly, “a reply is ‘mandatory when a party seeks to avoid an
affirmative defense in an answer or third-party answer.’” Id. at
1081 (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100 committee notes to 1972
amendment).

     On appeal, Appellant argues several avoidances to Appellees’
affirmative defenses including lack of prejudice, waiver, and
modification but failed to plead them in its reply as required. See
id. (“Where a party files no reply to an affirmative defense, this
merely denies (as opposed to avoids) the affirmative defense.”
(quoting Lazar v. Allen, 347 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)));
see also Citigroup Mortg. Loan Tr. Inc. v. Scialabba, 238 So. 3d
317, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“As we see it, lack of prejudice is an
avoidance which should be pleaded.”). Because these issues were

                                  2
not pled as avoidances nor tried by consent at the hearing below,1
we do not reach them here and Appellant may not be granted relief
on appeal. See Foliage Corp. of Fla., Inc. v. Watson, 381 So. 2d 356,
359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (explaining that failure to plead
avoidance of defendant’s affirmative defense constitutes waiver of
right to raise it).

    AFFIRMED.

JAY and SOUD, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

    1  See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b) (“When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties,
they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in
the pleadings.”); Frantz v. EM Paving Corp., 288 So. 3d 1285, 1288
(Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“An issue is tried by consent when there is no
objection to the introduction of evidence on that issue, unless the
evidence is relevant to other, properly pled issues.” (quoting Book
v. City of Winter Park, 718 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))).

                                 3