DAVID WITTS AND HELEN WITTS, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL CORTMAN AND JMD CORT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Witts appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Cortman on a promissory note default claim arising from an asset purchase agreement. The court reversed because Cortman failed to disprove the Witts' affirmative defenses or establish their legal insufficiency.
Summary judgment was improper because Cortman failed to disprove any affirmative defenses or establish their legal insufficiency. A bare assertion in an affidavit that the defendant has no defense is insufficient to overcome material factual issues raised by affirmative defenses such as fraud in the inducement.
[1] A party seeking summary judgment must disprove all affirmative defenses raised by the opposing party or establish their legal insufficiency.
[2] A party can defend against liability on a claim by showing they were fraudulently induced to enter into the contract.
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“Cortman failed to disprove any of the affirmative defenses raised by the Witts, nor did Cortman establish the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defenses.”
States the core reason for reversal—the moving party's failure to meet its burden on 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 intelligenceOn July 10, 1991, the Witts and Cortman entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement and Promissory Note for the purchase of Pizza Peddler business assets…
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 Default On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
David and Helen Witts (Witts) appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of Michael Cortman and JMD Cort, Inc., (Cortman) in this contract case. We reverse because Cortman failed to disprove any of the affirmative defenses raised by the Witts, nor did Cortman establish the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defenses.
On July 10, 1991, the Witts and Cortman entered into an “Asset Purchase Agreement and a Promissory Note” for the purchase of the assets of a business known as the Pizza Peddler, which Cortman owned.
On October 31, 1991, Cortman filed a two-count complaint alleging that the Witts were in default on the promissory note in count I and a replevin in count II. The Witts contended that the note was not in default, and they raised several affirmative defenses. Seven months later Cortman filed an amended complaint again alleging a default on the promissory note in count I and a replevin in count II. The Witts answered the amended complaint and raised several affirmative defenses; such as, fraud in the inducement, breach of warranty, and lack of consideration. Cortman filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on count I (default), and at the same time voluntarily dismissed count II (replevin).
The Witts are pro se and while their answer is poorly drafted, they did manage to set forth enough facts to raise a factual issue regarding fraud in the inducement. See Poneleit v. Reksmad, Inc., 346 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (holding that a party can defend successfully against liability on a claim by showing that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the contract or transaction).
Cortman failed to disprove any of the affirmative defenses, nor did he establish the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defenses. Cortman filed an affidavit in support of the summary judgment wherein he simply stated, “I believe that there is no defense to the cause of action set forth in my complaint.” This is not sufficient proof to establish that there is no material issue of fact or that the affirmative defense of fraud in the inducement was legally insufficient. See Campagna v. Dicus, 606 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(e); See also Dean v. Gold Coast Theatres, Inc., 156 So. 2d 546, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEHAN, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Smith, 156 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Justina Dean v. Gold Coast Theatres, Inc., 156 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Poneleit v. Reksmad, Inc., 346 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Campagna v. Dicus, 606 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Ribas v. State, 606 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)