BBURGETT, LLC
v.
BENFAM HOLDINGS, LLC
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.
BBURGETT, LLC appealed a final judgment of foreclosure granted via summary judgment in favor of BENFAM HOLDINGS, LLC. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District, reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) by not stating its specific reasons for granting summary judgment either orally or in writing.
The trial court's failure to provide specific reasons for granting summary judgment violated rule 1.510(a), requiring reversal and remand. The appellate court declined to address the merits of whether affirmative defenses created genuine issues of material fact because the procedural deficiency was dispositive.
[1] A trial court must state on the record the specific reasons for granting or denying a motion for summary judgment.
[2] A conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute as to a material fact is insufficient to comply with the rule requiring the trial court to state its reas…
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“the trial court failed to detail its specific reasons for granting summary judgment either orally or in its written order as required by rule 1.510(a)”
Establishes the core violation—the trial court did not comply with the procedural requirement to state reasons for summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBBURGETT, LLC and BENFAM HOLDINGS, LLC were parties to a foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for Orange County. The trial court granted summary ju…
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.
STARGEL, J.
BBURGETT, LLC, appeals the Final Judgment of Foreclosure, Non-Homestead, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, BENFAM HOLDINGS, LLC. Specifically, BBURGETT alleges that the final judgment fails to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a)¹ and that the trial court
Because the record on appeal includes a transcript from the summary judgment hearing, and because the trial court failed to detail its specific reasons for granting summary judgment either orally or in its written order as required by rule 1.510(a),² we reverse and remand for the limited purpose of having the trial court enter an order that is compliant with the rule. See Ballard v. Bank of Am., N.A., 365 So. 3d 1219, 1221-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (reversing and remanding for the limited purpose of having the trial court explain its reasoning as required by rule 1.510(a)) (internal citations omitted). "To comply with this requirement, it will not be enough for the court to make a conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute
Since the issue of whether the trial court erred in not making specific findings is dispositive, we do not reach the merits of whether the affirmative defenses raised create genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur. Anthony N. Legendre, II, of Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC, Maitland, for Appellant.
Daniel J. Mendez, Sergio L. Mendez, and Daniela C. Pachon, of Law Offices Mendez & Mendez, P.A., South Miami, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bburgett, LLC v. Benfam Holdings, LLC (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…t will not be enough for the court to make a conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute 2 BBURGETT preserved the issue by timely filing a motion for rehearing in the trial court. See Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217, 221 n.3 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) ("[W]hen an error appears for the first time on the face of the order, it is well settled that parties can preserve the issue by filing a motion for rehearing."); Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- Harris v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Bburgett, LLC v. Benfam Holdings, LLC (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)