PETER SOLIMINE AND ARMAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
NUMERICA SAVINGS BANK AND NUMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
PETER SOLIMINE AND ARMAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
NUMERICA SAVINGS BANK AND NUMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
587 So. 2d 505
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of the summary judgment entered against them. Their affirmative defense alleged appellees knew of the secondary financing and therefore, could not have relied on appellants’ sworn statement to the contrary. Appellees failed to negate that affirmative defense. See Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 364 So. 2d 47, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 461 (1979). Hence, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether appellees relied on those representations, which precluded entry of the summary judgment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doss v. Steger & Steger, P.A., 613 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…sisting almost entirely of inadmissible hearsay statements, not only failed to comply with the requirements of rule 1.510(e) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, but also failed to negate appellant’s affirmative defense. Solimine v. Numerica Sav. Bank, 587 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings. GLICKSTEIN, C.J., FARMER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur. . Appellant’s pro se answer, while less than artful, asserted as an…
Authorities Cited
- Quiroga v. State, 364 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)