GOLDEN HILLS GOLF & TURF CLUB, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ELLEN W. SPITZER, MARY LOIS JOHN, ALLEN F. BURNETT AND HIS WIFE, SHARON M. BURNETT, FREDERICK FELLMAN AND HIS WIFE, KATHLEEN FELLMAN, AND G. ALBERT SCHOELER, JR., AND HIS WIFE, KATHERINE S. SCHOELER, 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.
Golden Hills Golf & Turf Club appealed a summary judgment ruling regarding title to a 15-foot bridle path between Conestoga Boulevard and the parties' properties. The court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment for the appellees, finding that the appellant failed to meet its burden of presenting counterevidence after the appellees established the plat was ambiguous and showed the bridle path was part of the dedicated right-of-way.
The lower court properly granted summary judgment for the appellees because once the appellees presented competent evidence (affidavits from engineers and draftsmen) that the plat was ambiguous and showed the bridle path was part of the dedicated right-of-way, the burden shifted to the appellant to present counterevidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of disputed fact, which the appellant failed to do.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden to demonstrate the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact.
[2] Once a movant for summary judgment tenders competent evidence to support the motion, the opposing party must present counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A movant for summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. But once he tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue.”
Establishes the shifting burden framework for summary judgment motions under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bridle path 15 feet wide lay between Conestoga Boulevard (a dedicated road) and the eastern boundary of the appellant's property, which was also 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 Plat Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
This case concerns title to a 15-foot wide bridle path lying between Conestoga Boulevard (a dedicated road) and the eastern boundary of appellant’s property, which is also the western boundary of the properties of appellees. Vital to the resolution of the case is the interpretation of the plat of Golden Hills Turf & Country Club Subdivision. Appellant claims that the plat shows that the bridle path was separate from the dedicated road and reserved title to the appellant. The appellees claim that the plat shows that the bridle path is part of the dedicated road and thus subject to a public easement, which would allow them access from their properties to Conestoga Boulevard.
Both appellant and appellees moved for summary judgment. In support of their motion, the appellees submitted numerous affidavits from the engineers and draftsmen who designed the subdivision and plat, stating that the bridle path was meant to be part of the dedicated road. The appellant submitted no other evidence aside from the plat, contending that it was unambiguous. The lower court found the plat to be ambiguous and granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees.
The Florida Supreme Court case of Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979), is applicable to the case at bar. Landers held:
A movant for summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. But once he tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the op posing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue. It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert that an issue does exist. Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1965); Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1957); see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510.
Id. at 370. In the present case the plat was obviously ambiguous. The appellees met their initial burden by demonstrating that the plat should be read to mean that the bridle path was part of the dedicated right-of-way. Thus, the burden shifted to the appellant to come forth with counterevi-dence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of disputed fact. This was not done by the appellant, and thus the trial court properly granted summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and LEE, R.E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pelican Creek Homeowners, LLC v. Pulverenti, 243 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…e of material fact by attaching the relevant deeds and plat maps to their motion. In response, Appellees failed to provide sufficient countervailing evidence to establish an issue of material fact. See Golden Hills Golf & Turf Club, Inc. v. Spitzer, 475 So. 2d 254, 254-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("[O]nce [the movant] tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue. It is not enough for the opposing party merely to ass…
-
Pelican Creek v. Pulverenti (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…by attaching the relevant deeds and plat maps to their motion. In response, Appellees failed to provide sufficient countervailing evidence to establish an issue of material fact. See Golden Hills Golf & Turf Club, Inc. v. ---PAGE 10--- Spitzer, 475 So. 2d 254, 254–55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("[O]nce [the movant] tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue. It is not enough for the opposing party merely to…
-
Paladin Lampshade Corp. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 488 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1978). See Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979); Golden Hills Golf & Turf Club, Inc. v. Spitzer, 475 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 364 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1979). Appellant’s remaining point lacks merit.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Irving W. Landers et ux. v. Adelle L. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979)
- Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1957)