MAX MONDESTIN AND HELENA MONDESTIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DUVAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 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.
The court held that due process requires a new hearing when a party's counsel did not receive legally sufficient notice of the summary judgment hearing.
Appellants sought reversal of a summary final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case. Their counsel claimed he did not receive notice of the summary …
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek reversal of a summary final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case. It is undisputed that appellants were unrepresented at the summary judgment hearing. Counsel for appellants asserts that he was not present at the hearing because he did not receive notice, and that he would have been present had he known of the hearing. There is nothing in the record sufficient to establish that notice was received.
Because of the due process implications inherent in appellants’ position, this Court finds that it has no alternative but to reverse the summary final judgment and to remand for a new hearing on the motion, to be held after legally sufficient service of notice of the time and place of the hearing on appellants. However, the Court does not intend, by doing so, to express any opinion regarding the merit of either the motion for summary judgment or appellants’ arguments in opposition. We hold only that appellants are entitled to notice and an opportunity to appear and present their position.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., and WEBSTER, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Rapoport, 845 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2003)…plaintiff's due process rights were violated when the trial court granted a summary judgment motion eight days after it was filed without providing the plaintiff with a sufficient opportunity to be heard); Mondestin v. Duval Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 500 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard).…
-
Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. OF Midwest, 609 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…liability determines a party’s right to the relief requested and to deny either party a hearing must be construed as a denial of due process. See Berchtold v. Griffin, 592 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mondestin v. Duval Fed. Sav. and Loan Assoc., 500 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Wagner v. Vigor Island Corp., 443 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA1984). We express no opinion as to the merits of appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellate review of the merits would be premature given the trial court’s failur…
-
Greene v. Seigle, 745 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…mary judgment, the trial court granted it without a hearing or notice to Plaintiff. This violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) and Plaintiffs due process rights and thus requires a reversal. See Mondestin v. Duval Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 500 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard). Accordingly, final summary judgment in favor of Wright is reversed and this case remanded f…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence