1. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment in Fuentes v. Luxury Outdoor Design, Inc. et al. because the trial court granted the motion without considering whether supporting materials would result in the defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment.
2. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment in Romero v. Midland Funding, LLC. because the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to shift the burden to the defendant, who did not file a response.
3. The trial court in Romero looked at the arguments presented in making its finding, while the trial court in Fuentes did not. 1. The Fourth DCA emphasized the importance of serving a response to a motion in order to promote deliberative consideration of the motion.
2. In the case of Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, the nonmoving party’s failure to serve a response to the specific motion before the court resulted in an affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
3. The court cautioned that failing to file a response to a motion leaves the trial court to search for evidence that would preclude summary judgment.
4. In the case of Full Pro Restoration, a/a/o Fernandez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., the Third DCA affirmed the denial of late-filed summary judgment evidence, making it clear that proffering late evidence is a risky move. 1. In First Baptist Church of Greater Miami v. Miami Baptist Assoc., Inc., et al., the trial court signed a 6-page order within two hours, despite the opposing party being given only four hours to review and comment, raising questions about the thoroughness of the review process.
2. In Terrell King v. Farah & Farah, P.A., the trial court’s adoption of a forty-page proposed order without allowing objections from opposing counsel and without making factual or legal findings was found to be reversible error.
3. Jones v. Envolino saw the Third DCA reverse a trial court’s summary judgment order in a probate case, as it did not comply with the requirement to state the basis for the ruling as set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a).
4. Mech v. Brazilian Waxing By Sisters, Inc. also resulted in reversal and remand of a summary judgment order, as the trial court failed to explain its reasoning for denying one party’s motion and granting the opposing party’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 1. Fuentes v. Luxury Outdoor Design, Inc. et al. – Movants must file motions with supporting evidence.
2. Romero v. Midland Funding, LLC – Responding parties must also provide supporting evidence.
3. Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky – The trial court’s ruling must be based on a clear record.
4. No. 3D21-2312 – Parties should be given ample time to review proposed orders.
5. No. 3D21-2311 – Same as No. 3D21-2312.
6. No. 2014-CA-001683 – Findings not provided.
7. No. 339 So. 3d 473 – Findings not provided.
8. 349 So.3d 453 – Findings not provided.
https://www.rumberger.com/insights/appellate-courts-applying-floridas-new-summary-judgment-standard-takeaways-and-practice-pitfalls/
Leave a Reply