ED R. WILSON, D/B/A SELECT TOMATO, APPELLANT,
v.
GRADY PRUETTE, APPELLEE
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.
Summary judgment was improperly granted because the plaintiff's affidavit did not negate the defendant's affirmative defense of consignment, thus a material issue of fact remained.
Plaintiff sued for payment for goods sold and delivered, but the defendant raised an affirmative defense that the goods were consigned, not sold. The …
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Plaintiff/appellee brought suit to recover payment for goods sold and delivered. Defendant/appellant answered, denying that a sale of goods had taken place and raising as an affirmative defense that the goods were consigned, rather than sold, by plaintiff to defendant.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and filed an affidavit in support of his motion stating that he sold defendant the goods described in the invoices attached to his complaint and affidavit. Plaintiffs affidavit, however, did not negative the defendant’s affirmative defense of consignment. Defendant, on the other hand, filed an opposing affidavit specifically supporting his affirmative defense. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff for $7,948 and costs. Defendant filed this appeal. We reverse.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 allows entry of a summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant has the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Jones v. Stoutenburgh, 91 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1956). Once an affirmative defense is-raised, the movant has the additional burden of either disproving or establishing the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defense. Stewart v. Gore, 314 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
As a sale was claimed by plaintiff, and consignment was alleged as an affirmative defense, plaintiff had to negative that defense in order to justify entry of a summary judgment. Neither the plaintiff’s affidavit nor the invoices he submitted refuted the defense of consignment. The defendant raised and supported a defense which created a material issue of fact. Therefore, summary judgment was improper. Accordingly, we vacate the summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
OTT, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SAC Constr. Co., Inc. v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 449 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…entry of a summary judgment against SAC and PAR-CAP. While we agree that the movant must disprove or establish the legal insufficiency of an affirmative defense, Puritan Insurance Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wilson v. Pruette, 422 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Arvida Corp., 421 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we note that the affirmative defenses were raised by Muller only. Neither SAC nor PAR-CAP filed any affirmative defenses and accordingly they must be dee…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Agric. v. GO Bungee, Inc., 678 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…irst National Bank of Clearwater, 369 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Once an affirmative defense is raised, the movant has the burden of either disproving it or establishing the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defense. Wilson v. Pruette, 422 So. 2d 351, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). It is not clear to us how any of the Department’s defenses were shown to be legally insufficient as a matter of law. We reverse because of the failure to make specific fact findings, and the apparent failure to consider aff…
-
Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concreto Asfaltico Nacional, S.A., 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…Martin, 330 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).” Pandol Bros., Inc. v. NCNB Nat’l Bank, 450 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also International Commercial Properties, Inc. v. O’Donnell, 462 So. 2d 95 [*777] (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Wilson v. Pruette, 422 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Allington Towers Condominium North, Inc. v. Allington Towers North, Inc., 415 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Emile v. First Nat’l Bank, 126 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Hyde raised several affirmative defenses to CAN’s allegat…
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
- Jones v. Stoutenburgh, 91 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956)
- Whitehall Realty, Inc. v. City OF Boca Raton, 314 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)