PRENTICE-HALL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL A. BAUER, 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.
Prentice-Hall's summary judgment against Bauer for breach of a lease assumption agreement and Bauer's cross-appeal on his counterclaim for breach of warranty and fraud were both reversed because material factual disputes existed that precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment is improper when material factual disputes exist regarding either party's claims.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when the record discloses unresolved issues of material fact regarding either party's claims.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrentice-Hall sued Bauer for breach of a lease assumption agreement, seeking indemnification and damages and alleging Bauer was the alter ego of Finan…
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 Alter Ego Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By these consolidated appeals, Prentice-Hall, Inc. seeks to reverse a summary final judgment entered against it in an action brought by it against Paul A. Bauer, appel-lee. Prentice-Hall’s action, based upon an alleged breach of a lease assumption agreement, sought indemnification and damages against both Paul A. Bauer and Financial Displays, Inc. (FDI) (not a party to this appeal), alleging that Bauer was the alter ego of FDI. Bauer, as cross-appellant, seeks reversal of an adverse summary final judgment entered against him on his counterclaim alleging breach of warranty and fraud against Prentice-Hall, Inc.
The record discloses the existence of unresolved issues of material fact as to Prentice-Hall’s claim and Bauer’s counterclaim. Finding, therefore, that the parties have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the absence of any disputed issues of material fact and that the trial court erred in entering the summary final judgments appealed, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Forys v. McLaughlin, 436 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Amazon v. Davidson, 390 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Alepgo Corp. v. Pozin, 114 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), cert. denied, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1960). See generally Burris v. Jacobson, Inc., 417 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fenick v. Robertson, 406 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alepgo Corp. v. Pozin, 114 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Evelyn Amazon v. Davidson, 390 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Fenick v. Robertson, 406 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Forys v. McLAUGHLIN, 436 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Tatum Corp. v. Vinyard, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960)
- Giliespie v. State, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960)
- Burris v. Jacobson, Inc., 417 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)