## Facts

- Gerald LaFont and Judith Decker-Angel were in a romantic relationship.
- LaFont gave Decker-Angel a $250,000 check.
- LaFont sued Decker-Angel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (diversity), asserting Utah-law claims including fraud, conversion, and constructive trust tied to the $250,000 transfer.
- LaFont alleged the check represented his contribution toward a planned joint purchase of property and that Decker-Angel wrongfully used the money for herself.
- Decker-Angel denied LaFont’s allegations in her answer and did not plead affirmative defenses.
- Decker-Angel also pursued a counterclaim seeking to collect on a separate $250,000 promissory note.
- At trial, Decker-Angel first stated (including during opening statements) that LaFont gave her the $250,000 as a gift in return for her services as his companion, advisor, and lover and for relocating to Utah to work with him.
- LaFont objected that “gift” was an affirmative defense barred by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) because it had not been pleaded.
- The district court overruled the objection, allowed the gift evidence, found the $250,000 check was a gift, and entered judgment against LaFont on his claims.
- The district court rejected Decker-Angel’s effort to treat both the check and the promissory note as gifts and entered judgment against her on the promissory-note counterclaim.
- On appeal, LaFont challenged only the admission of Decker-Angel’s gift evidence under Rule 8(c).

## Issues

1. Whether Decker-Angel’s contention that the $250,000 check was a gift was an affirmative defense that had to be pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), such that failing to plead it waived the theory and barred the evidence.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not err by admitting Decker-Angel’s evidence that the check was a gift even though “gift” was not pleaded as an affirmative defense.
- The court agreed that Decker-Angel’s general denials of fraud and conversion were sufficient to permit her to present a competing account that she obtained the funds lawfully.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(c) requires a responding party to plead affirmative defenses or avoidances; failure to do so can waive the defense and can bar related evidence.
- A matter that functions only as a denial—because it directly disputes the plaintiff’s factual theory or negates an element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case—does not necessarily have to be pleaded as an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c).
- When a defendant’s general denials fairly signal that the defendant claims rightful receipt of the disputed property, the defendant may offer evidence supporting that claim (including that the transfer was a gift) without Rule 8(c) waiver.

## Conclusion

LaFont v. Decker-Angel held that Rule 8(c) did not bar Decker-Angel’s trial evidence that LaFont’s $250,000 check was a gift because her general denials of fraud and conversion allowed her to argue she obtained the money rightfully; the Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed the judgment.


LaFont v. Decker-Angel, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8336 (1999)