PAUL W. LEVINE AND TODD LEVINE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CONSTITUTION BANK, APPELLEE
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 the party moving for summary judgment failed to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail, and genuine issues of material fact remain.
Constitution Bank sued appellants Paul W. Levine and Todd Levine, alleging fraudulent conveyances of real property. The trial court granted the bank's…
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, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellants, Paul W. Levine and Todd Levine, challenge a summary judgment entered against them and in favor of the appel-lee, Constitution Bank. We reverse.
Constitution Bank filed an action against the appellants seeking to set aside certain conveyances of real property made by appellant Paul W. Levine to appellant Todd Levine. The appellee alleged that the conveyances were fraudulently made. The trial court granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and the appellants filed a timely notice of appeal from the final judgment entered against them.
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. 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. Snyder. In this case, Constitution Bank did not meet its burden and several issues of material fact remain to be decided by the trier of fact.
We, accordingly, reverse the final summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. M.S.P., 647 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1995)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in M.S.P. v. State, 640 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which certified conflict with the opinion in B.H. v. State, 622 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. The decision below is quashed and the case remanded for reconsideration in light…
Authorities Cited
- 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)