CHESTER G. CHENTNIK, MAXINE R. CHENTNIK, AND STRAWN MILLWORK, INC., F/K/A STRAWN AND SON VARIETY SHOP, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
E. CLYATTE STRAWN AND MILDRED H. STRAWN, 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 appellants purchased the appellees' corporation and discovered missing funds and certificates of deposit after closing. The appellees obtained partial summary judgment on the appellants' conversion counterclaim, but the court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
The appellees did not meet their burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment on the conversion counts because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the disputed funds were carried on the corporate books at the time of sale and whether the corporation owned and maintained the certificate of deposit titled in the corporate name.
[1] A party seeking summary judgment must conclusively establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
[2] Summary judgment is precluded when the moving party's affidavits fail to address all relevant time periods or material allegations in the pleadings.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A party seeking summary judgment carries the heavy burden of conclusively establishing the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to any of the material allegations in the pleadings.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment that the appellees failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants purchased a business corporation from the appellees. After closing, the appellants discovered that certain funds and certificates of de…
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
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellants appeal from a partial summary judgment entered in favor of the appellees on counts II and IV of the appellants’ counterclaim. We determine that genuine issues of material fact precluded the partial summary judgment in this case, and we reverse.
The dispute in this case arose from the sale of the appellees’ business, a corporation, to the appellants. After closing on the sale, the appellants discovered that certain funds and certificates of deposit were no longer held by the corporation. The appellees filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the assets at issue had been made available to the family-operated business but had never belonged to the corporation. The appellants counterclaimed, alleging essentially in counts II and IV that the funds were part of the sale transaction and had therefore been converted. The appellees filed a motion for partial summary judgment accompanied by the affidavits of the business’s accountant and prior owners and operators. Following a hearing, the court entered partial summary judgment in the appellees’ favor as to counts II and IV of the counterclaim.
A party seeking summary judgment carries the heavy burden of conclusively establishing the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to any of the material allegations in the pleadings. Foote v. Green Tree Acceptance, Inc., 597 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). In this case, the affiants assert that the disputed funds were not carried on the corporate books through 1987, but do not mention 1988, the year of the sale. Furthermore, the appellees assert in their affidavits that they “had all power and authority to transfer the subject funds from the corporation ” at any time prior to the closing of the sale. We do not find these statements sufficient to meet the allegations in the complaint that certain of the disputed funds were carried on the corporate books at the time of the sale and that the corporation owned, maintained, and paid taxes on the disputed certificate of deposit, which was titled in the corporate name. We thus conclude that the appellees did not meet their burden of proving they were entitled to prevail on counts II and IV as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the partial summary judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings on counts II and IV of the appellants’ counterclaim.
ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.