Setoff Defense

32 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Campbell v. McLaurin Inv. Co.
  74 Fla. 501· Fla.· 1917-12-13 ·cited 56×
  J. P. Campbell leased commercial property from McLaurin Investment Company for three years at $350/month but abandoned the lease after July 1, 1914, owing six months' rent. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the lessor, holding that the lease was validly executed as
• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. The United States
  338 F.2d 668· Ct. Cl.· 1964-11-13 ·cited 37×
  The court held that while the government can raise a setoff defense in a refund suit, it must first demonstrate a reasonable basis for the defense before the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove the correctness of the challenged item.
• Franklin Phosphate Co. v. Int'l Harvester Co. of Am.
  62 Fla. 185· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 30×
  Franklin Phosphate Company sued International Harvester Company on two promissory notes given as part payment for a machine. The defendant filed multiple pleas attempting to assert failure of consideration and set-offs, but the trial referee sustained demurrers to all pleas and e
• Michelin Tires (Canada) Ltd. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Boston
  666 F.2d 673· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an account debtor may have an independent cause of action against an assignee under UCC § 9-318(1)(a) for claims arising from the contract between the account debtor and the assignor.
• E. Qualcom Corp. v. Global Commerce Ctr. Ass'n, Inc.
  59 So. 3d 347· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-04-27 ·cited 21×
  E. Qualcom Corp. appeals summary judgments entered against it in a foreclosure action by Global Commerce Center Association for unpaid assessments. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Association failed to meet its burden of proving the absence of genui
• United States v. Avanti Constructors, Inc.
  750 F.2d 759· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 15×
  A material supplier suing under the Miller Act need only prove four elements and is not subject to a set-off defense from a general contractor with whom it lacks privity.
• Beach v. Great W. Bank
  670 So. 2d 986· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-01-31 ·cited 14×
  This is a case of first impression in Florida addressing whether a consumer can assert a right to rescind a mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) as a recoupment defense in a foreclosure action after the three-year statutory period has expired. The court holds that the t
• Kellogg v. Fowler
  807 So. 2d 669· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-11-28 ·cited 13×
  Kellogg appealed a summary judgment dismissing his legal malpractice action against his former attorneys, Fowler White. The court reversed, holding that Kellogg's malpractice claim was not a compulsory counterclaim in the prior fee dispute because it had not accrued when the answ
• Union Carbide Corp. v. The United States
  612 F.2d 558· Ct. Cl.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the last sentence of Treas.Reg. § 1.1502-25(c), which excludes corporations with net operating losses from calculations of consolidated taxable income attributable to WHTCs, is invalid and cannot be applied to computations under I.R.C. § 1503(b)(1).
• Am. Prime Title Servs., LLC v. ZHI Wang
  317 So. 3d 1183· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-03 ·cited 6×
  Certiorari is not available to review a discovery order denying disclosure of settlement amounts where the trial court has indicated it will revisit the setoff issue after liability is determined, because any error in the timing and sequencing of discovery is remediable on plenar
• Allen v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
  198 So. 3d 871· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-06-10 ·cited 6×
  Homeowners sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring disclosure of their settlement agreement with Federal Insurance in a breach of contract action against State Farm. The court held that disclosure was premature and violated the essential requirements of law becaus
• E. O. Painter Fertilizer Co. v. DuPont
  56 Fla. 511· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the defendant in a case concerning fertilizer sales. The court found that the plaintiff fertilizer company had a right of action against the defendant buyer, despite the buyer's claim that he purchased from an intermediary supply
• Hinton v. Brooks
  820 So. 2d 325· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-11-16 ·cited 4×
  Fraud in the inducement is not barred by the economic loss rule and constitutes a valid affirmative defense in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Louisville v. Hurricane Elkhorn Coal Corp. II
  763 F.2d 188· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bank's claim to the agent's retained funds failed because the bank did not prove the setoff affected the debtor's estate rather than the bank itself.
• In re Diversified Mountaineer Corp. v. Duttine
  612 F.2d 841· 4th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 4×
  Directors who signed promissory notes to evade statutory stockholding requirements are estopped from claiming unenforceability of the notes.
• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States
  411 F.2d 327· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that running repair expenses should not be allocated on a where-incurred basis, and state property taxes are exclusively allocable to United States-source income.
• Collins v. Plant
  68 Fla. 338· Fla.· 1914-11-24 ·cited 4×
  Collins sued Plant for payment for commercial fertilizers sold, recovering $125 plus interest and costs. Both parties appealed, challenging the trial court's rulings on various defenses and the admission of the State Chemist's analysis evidence regarding fertilizer composition.
• Vital v. Summertree Vill. at the Cal. Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  343 So. 3d 1260· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-08-03 ·cited 3×
  A final judgment in a foreclosure action that does not adjudicate all pending affirmative defenses to the foreclosure claim is premature and must be reversed, even though it is in the form of a final judgment and establishes a foreclosure sale date. Interlocutory orders related t
• RLS Bus. Ventures, Inc. v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc.
  779 So. 2d 421· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-10-11 ·cited 2×
  RLS Business Ventures and Richard Soto appealed a judgment arising from a dispute with Second Chance entities over a failed used car business partnership. The court affirmed the jury's rejection of RLS's usury claim but reversed an improper damages award against RLS and Soto beca
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Nicolette Strachan
  82 So. 3d 1052· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-10-12 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court held that a writ of certiorari should be dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be remedied on appeal.
• Carson Concrete Corp. v. InteRebar Fabricators, LLC
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-09-30
  A party cannot establish economic duress as a defense to breach of contract when the threatened party has adequate legal remedies available, and a set-off claim fails when unsupported by documentation and excluded by contract terms.
• Republic of Panama v. Omega Eng'g LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-22
  The court overruled most of Panama's objections to discovery requests, ordering production of documents, and directed parties to confer on specific issues, while sustaining some objections as irrelevant to the setoff defense.
• King Ocean Servs. Ltd. v. CI Mistic SAS Fruits & Vegetables, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-28
  The court held that Counts II, III, and IV of the counterclaim are dismissed due to COGSA preemption, and the set-off affirmative defense is stricken.
• Wilson v. Houston
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2021-06-18
  A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for leave to amend pleadings to add a setoff defense when the moving party did not abuse the privilege to amend, the proposed amendment would not be futile, and the opposing party would not be prejudiced.
• Estrada Rabelo v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-05-22
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses, finding them not facially insufficient as a matter of law.
• Watts v. Iheartmedia + Ent., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-29
  The court held that discovery of confidential settlement agreements is generally permissible under an appropriate protective order if the documents are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
• Diya Salame v. 1ST Priority Restoration, Inc.
  221 So. 3d 706· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-05-24
  Salame petitioned for second-tier certiorari review of an appellate division's affirmance of a county court order awarding attorney's fees to 1st Priority Restoration following a breach of contract dispute. The court held that although the trial court erred by determining the pre
• Posner & Sons, Inc. v. Transcapital Bank
  65 So. 3d 1193· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-07-27
  The court reversed dismissal of a fraud counterclaim in consolidated foreclosure cases, holding that fraud claims based on information in a property's chain of title must be resolved on a case-by-case basis rather than through categorical preclusion under a bright-line rule.
• In & for Kent Cnty. Velocity Express, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2009-08-07
  The court granted in part and denied in part Office Depot's motion for summary judgment. The court denied the motion regarding Velocity's claim for amounts owed under the CD&L contract, finding a genuine issue of material fact. The court granted the motion regarding Office Depot'
• United States ex rel. Bartec Indus., Inc. v. United Pac. Co.
  976 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-06
  The court held that a contract for fabricated steel is a sale of goods under the UCC, and damages should be calculated using the cost of 'cover' for lost items. It also held that the surety was not entitled to a set-off for defective materials due to lack of privity.
• The City OF Hialeah v. Calderon
  430 So. 2d 566· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-03
  The City of Hialeah appealed a judgment awarding damages to Orlando Calderon for personal injuries, arguing the trial court erred by denying its motion to set off a prior settlement. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury and trial judge could reasonably conc
• Captain Edwin P. Lemay v. Wohl
  198 So. 2d 848· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-05-16
  This case concerns whether a tenant can present defenses like advance payments or credits in a landlord's distress for rent action. The appellate court held that such defenses are permissible, reversing the trial court's exclusion of this evidence.