DWIGHT DAVID CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA B. MUNROE AND DAVID P. HOPSTETTER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE W. MUNROE, JR., DECEASED, APPELLEES
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.
A stipulation for summary judgment is not binding on the court if material issues of fact remain.
[1] A stipulation by parties to decide a case based on cross-motions for summary judgment is ineffective where material issues of fact remain.
[2] Parties cannot control questions of law through stipulation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties stipulated that their case could be decided on cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appell…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Material Issue Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Clark’s issue on appeal is that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees and in failing to grant it in his favor. Upon review of the record we find that material issues of fact remain, precluding the entry of summary judgment for either party. Accordingly, we reverse the lower court’s order and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We arrive at this conclusion despite the fact the trial court’s order recites that during the summary judgment proceedings, all parties stipulated that the entire case could be decided on the basis of the opposing motions for summary judgment raised by each party.1 Such a stipulation, even if made, had no effect. Although counsel may stipulate for use of a summary judgment procedure, or both move for it, the stipulation is not binding on the court where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. Osceola County v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co., 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We do not interpret the above rule as authorizing the trial court to accept such a stipulation where the record reveals disputed issues of material facts. The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 175 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), affd., 189 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1966). Moreover, “[c]ourts will not give effect to a stipulation where it conflicts with established principles of procedure.” (e.s.) See 2 Fla.Jur.2d, Agreed Case and Stipulation, § 10, p. 428 (1977); see also, Economy Cash and Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cleaning Dyeing and Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829 (1937). Finally, summary judgment is not a substitute for trial. Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THOMPSON, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents.
. The transcript of the summary judgment proceedings which apparently contained the alleged oral stipulation was not made a part of the record on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parise v. Citizens Nat'l Bank & Arthur H. Garrecht, 438 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…uit was filed and before any other method of acceleration was employed by the appellees. These facts were put in issue by affidavits and countered by other affidavits. Summary judgment was improper to resolve these factual disputes. Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ernest v. Carter, 368 So. 2d 428 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). FAILURE TO INSURE AND TO REIMBURSE ASSIGNEES FOR PAYMENT OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS The appellees also argue that Parise’s failure to procure the insurance required under the cont…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Weggies Banana Boat, 545 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ttorney stipulated to the trial court’s entry of a mistrial is immaterial in deciding the question presented regarding the legality of the jurors’ impeachment of their verdict. Parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law. Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In finding the jury’s verdict was not unanimous and as such improper and grounds for a new trial, the trial judge determined a question of law. The correctness of that decision is the subject of this appeal regardless of any sti…
-
Alvarez v. Smith, 714 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…rather than the parties. Cf Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S. v. MacGill, 551 F. 2d 978, 983 (5th Cir.1977) (noting that “it is well settled that a court is not bound to accept as controlling stipulations as to questions of law”); Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 1st DGA 1981) (“The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law.”). Regarding the FDA status, the majority of reported eases hold that as a matter of law doctors are not required to disclose the FDA status of pedicle screws b…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rivers v. Ross, 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Econ. Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc v. Cleaning, 128 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1937)
- Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Farris Bryant, 175 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Osceola Cnty. v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Farris Bryant, 189 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1966)
- Byrd v. State, 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)