JOSE PEREZ-VILLARREAL, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FEDERICO MACIA, ET AL., 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 reversed summary judgment for defendants because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether a mortgage loan commitment was issued in writing and delivered before the contractual deadline of August 31, 1992.
Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the timing and delivery of a mortgage loan commitment.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the issuance, form, delivery, and timing of a mortgage loan commitment in a real estate…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose and Beverly Perez-Villarreal appealed an adverse summary judgment in a real estate transaction dispute involving whether a mortgage loan commitme…
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 Real Estate Transactions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs, Jose and Beverly Perez-Villarreal, appeal from an adverse final summary judgment. We reverse. “Summary judgment is proper only where ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the 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.’ ” RCA Invs., Inc. v. Amerivend Corp., 581 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (quoting Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c)); see also, Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Newport Seafood, Inc. v. Neptune Trading Corp., 555 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
After reviewing the record, we find that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding: 1) whether a mortgage loan commitment was issued before August 31, 1992; 2) if a loan commitment was issued, whether it was issued in writing; 3) if it was issued in writing, whether it was delivered to the sellers or the sellers’ agent before August 31, 1992; and 4) if a loan commitment was not issued before the date in question, whether the sellers granted an extension of time for the buyers to obtain a loan commitment. Since there are genuine issues of material fact remaining, entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is precluded. Elmariah v. Orange Memorial Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 382 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charity v. The Fla. State Univ., 680 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…provide a correct and independent basis for the decision reached by the hearing officer, the inclusion in the order of an erroneous reason or rule for the same result would not be grounds for reversal. See Springfield v. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 648 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“the law is so well settled as to require no citation of authority to the effect that a correct result or judgment, though based on an erroneous reason or rule, requires affir-mance on appeal”), quoting from Jones v. Dove,…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Newport Seafood, Inc. v. Neptune Trading Corp., 555 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- RCA Invs., Inc. v. Amerivend, 581 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Ahmed M. Elmariah v. Orange Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 382 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)