IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORmA

COUNTY CIVIL ACTION

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,

assignee of ASPIRE VISA.
Plaintiff,
v, CASE NO. 09-464-CC

LACOLIA C. LAYTON,
Defendant.
\

ORDER

This casecame to the court at the defendant's request, to review the 5-count,
35 paragraph complaint seeking to recover $4,500.44 on a credit card debt. In a
handwritten entreaty worthy of comparison to Clarence Gideon's (Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)), the defendant has asked the court to dismiss the
complaint, becauseit was not filed in the small claims division of the county court.
Perhapsanticipating such an objection, the plaintiff assertsthat, "This is a cause of
action for equitable relief pursuant to Florida Statute 34.01, not an action at law
which this County Court has subject matterjurisdiction in that the small claims court
division does not have the jurisdiction over equitable matters..."(quoted verbatim
from paragraph 1].

Ominously,the 8-pagecomplaint filed by the plaintiff is entitled:

ESTOPPEL. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (ESTOPPEL IN PAI~)_.

EQUITABLE SUBROGATION
Despite the plaintiff's frequent invocation of equitable words and phrasesin
the many headings and in the body of the pleading, this action seeksnot a scintilla of

1. Indebitatusassumpsitwas abolishedin the courtsof GreatBritain by the JudicatureAct of

1873.

Small Claims Rules Committee

2010 Annual Convention Meeting
Page 47 of 49
equitable relief. Each one of the five prayers for relief seeks only, "..judgment
against the Defendant(s) in the amount of $4,500.44... " Contrary to the apparent
understanding of plaintiff, an action seeking money is an action at law, even if (as is
often the case)the claim is basedupon equitable principles. Plaintiff s assertionthat
the action is inappropriate for consideration under the Small Claims Rules is blatantly
false.

Plaintiff's periphrasticpleadingpurportsto invoke equity (and,therefore,the

full scopeof the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure)in pretentious languageand
tortured syntax.For example,considerthe following sentencefrom paragraph6 of
the complaint,which, the court assures,is accuratelyrestatedhere:

The Defendant was is privity of with the Plaintiff's

predecessor in interest with respect to the foregoing
understandingand not the Plaintiff

Better, consider this 68-word, no-comma sentencefrom paragraph 19 of the

complaint,which again is accurately restatedhere:

At no time after repeated demands to pay the debt in issue

did the Defendant dispute that thefunds in issue were not
due andfurther by virtue of their voluntary conduct by not
disputing that the debt in issue were not due the Plaintiff
acting in good faith relied upon such conduct and
precipitated the above cause of action in order to recover
on the sums due.

Plaintiff's intent is manifest. By useof hundred-dollarwords interestingonly

to lawyers (e.g., equitable subrogation), archaic Latin phrases(e.g., indebitatus
assumpsi[sic]) and redundantpleadings,plaintiff is attempting to intimidate an
unsophisticateddefendantto the point of capitulation. More troubling, however,is
plaintifr s attempt to entwine the courts in this processby misrepresentingthe
equitablenatureof the action, so that the Florida Rules of Civil Proceduremay be
used on the offense (e.g., Requestsfor Admissions, Interrogatories,Motions for
SummaryJudgment,andthe like).

We can call somethinga sus celebensis,but it is and alwayswill bejust a pig. This
is and will always be a small claims case. Under such circumstances,the Small
Claims Rulesdemand, "...a statementof claim in conciseform, which shall inform
the defendantof the basisand the amountof the claim. " Rule 7.050.Fla. Sm.CI. R.
Further, this court is required to construethe Rules, "...to implementthe simple,
speedy,and inexpensivetrial of actions in county courts." Rule 7.01O(a).Fla. Sm.

Small Claims Rules Committee

2010 Annual Convention Meeting
Page 48 of 49
.c~ Underthe Small Claims Rules,this defendanthasonly to appearto be heard,
and neednot file anything in responseto the plaintiffs papers.This court will not
requireotherwiseas the result of the pleading artiface propoundedby the plaintiff
which seeksto avoid application of the appropriaterules. Our courts have always
adheredto the great principle that, "...Small Claims courts are designedto be a
'People'sCourt' in which technical rules of pleading must not obscurethe greater
purposeof justice for all." Metro Ford. Inc. v. Green,724 So. 2d 706,707 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 1999)(quoting from Donaghuev. Wallach,455 So.2d 1085,1086n.l (Fla.2d
DCA 1984)).

ACCORDINGLY, the court grants the defendant'smotion to dismiss the

complaint. The dismissal,this time, is without prejudice to the plaintiffs right to
refile in the proper procedural framework. Any costs associatedwith this now-
dismissedaction shall be borne by plaintiff.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambersin Naples, Collier County, Florida, this

day of March, 2009.

- -
VINCE MURPHY
COUNTY COURT JUDGE

cc:

Mindy Taran,Esq.
Erskine& Fleisher
55 WestonRoad, Ste 300
Fort Lauderdale,FI 33326

Lacolia C. Layton
5446 Hardee St.
Naples, FL 34113

Small Claims Rules Committee

2010 Annual Convention Meeting
Page 49 of 49