Background
This case arose from a landlord-tenant dispute in which the tenant, Marc Silverstone, asserted only a breach-of-lease claim in his complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment in the tenant’s favor, ruling that text messages exchanged between the tenant and the property manager modified the written terms of the lease. The landlord, Best&Beam Management, Inc., appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third DCA reversed. The court held that the trial court could not grant summary judgment on a theory of contract modification via text messages because that theory was never pled in the complaint. Silverstone asserted only breach of lease—he did not plead modification, waiver, or estoppel as either an affirmative claim or a defense. Under Florida law, a trial court at a summary judgment hearing can only consider issues raised by the pleadings.
The court cited established precedent that “issues that are not pled in a complaint cannot be considered by the trial court at a summary judgment hearing” and that “[t]o allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party’s due process rights.”
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts cannot grant summary judgment on legal theories not raised in the pleadings—including contract modification—regardless of the evidence presented.
- A party seeking to rely on text messages or other informal communications as evidence of contract modification must specifically plead modification as a claim or defense.
- Allowing summary judgment on unpled theories violates due process by depriving the opposing party of notice and the opportunity to respond.
Why It Matters
This case serves as an important reminder for litigators—particularly in landlord-tenant disputes where informal communications are common—that the pleadings define the scope of what a court may decide on summary judgment. With the increasing prevalence of text-message evidence in commercial disputes, practitioners should be proactive about pleading modification, waiver, or estoppel theories when they intend to rely on informal communications that may alter written contract terms. Failure to do so may result in losing a favorable ruling on appeal, regardless of the underlying merits.