Kitchen v. Kitchen
Florida District Court of Appeal
404 So. 2d 203 (1981)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Eskell Kitchen (plaintiff) and Edith Kitchen (defendant) were divorced pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution. After the divorce was finalized, Eskell filed a petition to modify the financial provisions of the final judgment, alleging a change of circumstances. Edith filed an answer in which she raised as an affirmative defense the fact that the modifications Eskell sought were already addressed in the final judgment. Eskell did not file a reply in response to Edith’s affirmative defense. Seven months later, Edith moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Eskell never filed a reply to her affirmative defense. The trial court granted Edith’s motion. Eskell appealed, arguing that a reply was only required if Eskell sought to avoid, rather than simply deny, Edith’s affirmative defense.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boardman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
