## Facts

- Upland Development of Central Florida, Inc. was the general contractor on an apartment construction project and hired Amwell Corporation as a subcontractor.
- Whittaker Lloyd Bridge, Amwell’s president, executed partial lien waivers and releases stating Amwell’s laborers and suppliers had been paid for specified months.
- Relying on those waivers, Upland made monthly payments to Amwell totaling more than $80,000.
- Upland later discovered certain suppliers and laborers had not been paid despite the waivers’ representations.
- Upland previously arbitrated against Amwell concerning contract-performance disputes (back charges, incomplete fire caulking/fire dampers, and warranty issues).
- In a later suit, Upland sued Bridge individually for common-law fraud and for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), alleging misrepresentations in the lien waivers.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may strike a complaint as a sham pleading under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.150 based solely on res judicata.
2. Whether res judicata must be raised and litigated as an affirmative defense rather than resolved through a Rule 1.150 sham-pleading motion.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the order striking the complaint as a sham and dismissing the action with prejudice.
- The court held that res judicata, as an affirmative defense, could not by itself justify striking the complaint under Rule 1.150.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata is an affirmative defense that generally must be pleaded in an answer and supported by proof, rather than used as the sole basis to strike a pleading as a sham.
- A Rule 1.150 sham-pleading motion is directed to whether the pleading is palpably false or made in bad faith; it is not a substitute for summary judgment and does not test legal sufficiency.
- Disputed questions relevant to an affirmative defense—such as the scope and effect of a prior arbitration and identity of claims or parties—ordinarily require procedures that allow evidentiary development, not a sham-pleading ruling.

## Conclusion

The appellate court restored the complaint because the trial court improperly used a sham-pleading procedure to decide a res judicata defense; any preclusion argument had to be asserted and resolved through the normal mechanisms for affirmative defenses.


Upland Dev. of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Bridge, 910 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2005)