WAKEFIELD NURSERY, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID HUNTER, APPELLEE
HERSEY, Judge.
In this appeal from a summary final judgment we reverse because only eight days transpired between the date of the Notice and the date of the hearing whereas the rules clearly require twenty days notice. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). See Greer v. Workman, 203 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). In any event ownership of the pipes and an agreement as to their continued use were genuine material issues of fact the existence of which would have precluded summary judgment even after adequate notice. See, e.g., Tompkins v. Rosenberg, 194 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) the court there noting that it is not sufficient for the moving party to come forward with a mere preponderance of the evidence to obtain summary disposition of the issues.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Titusville Assocs., Ltd., 569 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ERVIN, Judge, specially concurring. Contrary to appellees’ assertion on rehearing, I find no conflict between this court’s opinion and Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). It was this court’s decision that Wakefield is factually distinguishable, because it is unclear in that case whether the motion for summary judgment was timely filed. As to the parol evidence issue, I certainly have no problem…
-
Titusville Assocs., Ltd. v. Barnett Banks Tr. Co., 591 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Barnett Banks Trust Co,, N.A. v. Titusville Associates, Ltd,., 560 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), based on express and direct conflict with Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3),. Fla. Const. In 1985, Brevard County issued industrial revenue development bonds to finance an adult congregate living facility to be built by Titusville Associates. Under their financin…
-
Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Titusville Assocs., Ltd., 560 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…as required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). The trial court sustained the objection, stating that rule 1.510(c) contemplates that the notice be served simultaneously with the motion. The court relied upon Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which reversed a summary final judgment “because only eight days transpired between the date of the Notice and the date of the hearing whereas the rules clearly require 20 days notice.” Based on two full days of testimony and p…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Greer v. Workman, 203 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Tompkins v. Montague Rosenberg, 194 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)