FRED CAMPBELL AND F & M CAMPBELL, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD H. SMITH AND WILLIAM SMITH, 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.
The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because material issues of fact remained regarding settlement and damages.
Appellants defaulted on a promissory note for the sale of a business. They raised the defense of settlement against appellees' claim for a deficiency …
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.
The appellants, Fred Campbell and F & M Campbell, Inc., challenge a final summary judgment entered in favor of the appel-lees, Edward H. Smith and William Smith. We reverse.
The appellees filed a multicount complaint seeking damages from the appellants for breach of an agreement for the sale of a business. The appellants admitted that they had defaulted on the promissory note executed in connection with the sale, but raised the defense of settlement in response to the appellees’ claim for a deficiency judgment. The trial court granted the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, foreclosed the appellants’ interest in the property, and entered a deficiency judgment against them. This timely appeal followed.
As stated in Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), a motion for summary judgment may only be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). Furthermore, the burden is on the party moving for a summary judgment to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Gomes; Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). If the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper. Gomes; Snyder. In this case, the appel-lees did not carry this burden and material issues of fact concerning settlement and the amount of damages, if any, remain to be decided by the trier of fact.
We, accordingly, reverse the final summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingram v. Brookins, 597 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…agreement. It is our view that the question of whether Ingram’s continued payment of the note was contingent upon performance of all the terms of the buy-sell agreement created a genuine fact issue precluding summary judgment. See Campbell v. Smith, 571 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Finally, the trial court determined that Steven Ingram was jointly and severally liable for payment of the note because of his unrestricted execution of it. Steven, too, contends that the buy-sell agreement should have been read…
Authorities Cited
- Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Watkins DRY Wall, Inc. v. Drummond Court Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)