HORST ANTON PAWLIK AND MARIA ANNA PAWLIK, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment foreclosing a promissory note against dairy farmers Pawlik, finding that disputed factual issues regarding the bank's alleged breach of duties in handling their accounts precluded summary disposition. The court affirmed the foreclosure but remanded the Pawliks' counterclaims for trial.
The court reversed the summary judgment as to the counterclaims because the Pawliks' affidavit and bank statements raised genuine disputes of fact precluding summary disposition, though the affidavit satisfied the personal knowledge requirement despite not expressly stating it. The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment and remanded the counterclaims for trial.
[1] Summary judgment is precluded when the record contains disputed factual allegations sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
[2] An affidavit is admissible in support of a motion for summary judgment if it demonstrates personal knowledge of the affiant's actions or conversations, even if not explic…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We reverse the grant of summary judgment, since evidence in the record, including a bank statement for the dairy account and an affidavit, contained sufficient disputed factual allegations to preclude summary disposition.”
States the core holding that factual disputes precluded summary judgment on the counterclaims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were dairy farmers with a long-standing relationship with Barnett Bank. In 1984, the bank required them to assign all milk sale proceeds to…
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 Personal Knowledge Requirement For Affidavits cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal of a summary final judgment foreclosing a promissory note and security agreements held by appellee, and ruling against appellants on their counterclaims.
The record reflects that appellants were dairy farmers and maintained a long-standing banking and loan relationship with appellee. In 1984, appellee required appellants to assign all the proceeds from their milk sales to an “income account” operated solely by appel-lee.
In December 1985, appellants executed a “Master Renewal Commercial Promissory Note” which refinanced existing loans. They contemporaneously executed security agreements and Uniform Commercial Code finance statements for personal property securing the loan. Although only the bank could disburse from the income account, a second “dairy account” also existed. This account was appellants’ personal checking account, and they had control over all disbursements. Two months after the December 1985 refinancing and three days before the first loan payment was due, appellants filed for bankruptcy. Appellee sued to foreclose on the note and security, and appellants filed several counterclaims asserting that the bank had breached ordinary and fiduciary duties of care in handling items drawn on the two accounts. Appellants further alleged that these errors seriously affected their ability to operate their business and contributed to their default.
We reverse the grant of summary judgment, since evidence in the record, including a bank statement for the dairy account1 and an affidavit, contained sufficient disputed factual allegations to preclude summary disposition.
Appellee contends that the affidavit of Mr. and Mrs. Pawlik, which recites the business dealings between the Pawliks and the bank, should not be considered because it does not expressly state it is based on the affiants’ personal knowledge. While the affidavit was not a model of clarity, it was admissible. The purpose of the personal knowledge requirement is to prevent the trial court from relying on hearsay when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165-1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and to ensure that there is an admissible evidentiary basis for the case, First Mortgage Investors v. Boulevard National Bank of Miami, 327 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), rather than mere supposition, Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979), or belief, United Bonding Insurance Company v. Durar-Stress, Inc., 243 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971).
Because Mr. and Mrs. Pawlik’s affidavit testimony related to actions they personally took or conversations in which they were participants, the face of the affidavit sufficiently shows that the personal knowledge requirement was met.
Accordingly, summary final judgment is reversed as to the Pawliks’ counterclaims and affirmed as to foreclosure on the note and security agreements. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . The statement shows that at the time appellee allegedly failed to honor certain bills, the account contained at least $3,500. Appellants alleged that appellee never provided them with an account statement until after default.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yosvani Gonzalez and Yenisleidy Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ment is "to ensure that there is an admissible evidentiary basis for the case rather than mere supposition or belief." Alvarez v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 661 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Pawlik v. Barnett Bank of Columbia Cty., 528 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ). The focus is on whether the affidavits show evidence of a nature that would be admissible at trial; if so, any questions regarding relative credibility or weight of that evidence compared to other evidence cannot be reso…
-
Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc., 868 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…nt the trial court from relying on hearsay when ruling on a motion for summary judgment ... and to ensure that there is an admissible eviden-tiary basis for the case rather than mere supposition or belief.” Pawlik v. Barnett Bank of Columbia County, 528 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Stiles’ supplemental affidavit contains statements that are not based upon her personal knowledge. Rather, Stiles’ statements are based upon her “understanding” of the underlying issues and her “opinion” of such issues. Mo…
-
Alvarez v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 661 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…prevent the trial court from relying on hearsay when ruling on a motion for summary judgment and to ensure that there is an admissible evidentiary basis for the case rather than mere supposition or belief.” Pawlik v. Barnett Bank of Columbia County, 528 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (citations omitted). An affidavit lacking the assertion that it is made on personal knowledge is not fatally defective if it shows, on its face, that it is based on the affiant’s personal knowledge. Myrick v. St. Catherine L…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- First Mortg. Invs. v. Boulevard Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 327 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Dura-Stress, Inc., 243 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)