ARLEN REALTY, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1980-08-18
Nos. SS-401, SS-425
McCORD, J., and -WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
386 So. 2d 886 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that a predecessor in title's admission of ownership and possession, even after divesting interest, can be considered against subsequent grantees on summary judgment.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants challenged a mortgage foreclosure summary judgment, alleging the appellee failed to establish the predecessor in title's ownership and poss…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Admissible Evidence Genuine Issue Of Material Fact Summary Judgment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WENTWORTH, Judge.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants seek review of a mortgage foreclosure by a summary judgment which we affirm. Appellants allege, among other points, that appellee has not established the predecessor in title’s ownership and possession of the subject property at the time of transfer to appellee.

Upon motion for summary judgment it is the movant’s burden to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1965). In the present case the predecessor in title, joined as a party defendant, admitted in a responsive pleading his prior ownership and possession of the subject property. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) provides that, upon motion for summary judgment, the trial court may consider the pleadings in determining whether any genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Gard, Fla. Evidence, Vol. 1 (1980), Comment to Rule 10:12, suggests that admissions by a predecessor in title are generally admissible against a subsequent grantee.

Appellants did not respond to appellee’s motion for summary judgment and have not affirmatively .challenged the predecessor in title’s ownership and possession of the subject property. Although the predecessor in title no longer held any interest in the property at the time he admitted his prior ownership and possession, in the circumstances of this case his admission was properly considered, upon motion for summary judgment, as against his co-defendants, the appellants.

The order appealed is AFFIRMED.

McCORD, J., and -WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dutilly v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
    …ate, by admissible evidence, the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979); O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Alren Realty, Inc. v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 386 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The plaintiff could have properly presented the blood test results for summary judgment purposes by one of two methods. First, the plaintiff could have submitted the affidavit of the technician who actually performed the tests.…
  • Parker v. The Dinsmore Co., 443 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
    …It has long been recognized that “[u]pon motion for summary judgment it is the movant’s burden to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact.” Arlen Realty, Inc. v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, 386 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (e.s.). When, as here, the non-moving party has raised affirmative defenses, it is incumbent upon the moving party to “either disprove [those] affirmative defenses or establish their legal insufficiency.” Proprietors Insurance Co…
  • Laderman v. Ceramo, Inc., 450 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
    …PER CURIAM. Appellee having shown the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, we find no error in the trial court’s grant of final summary judgment. Arlen Realty, Inc. v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 386 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Affirmed.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw