MICHAEL PINCHOT AND KATHLEEN PINCHOT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST FLORIDA BANKS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, OLGA BARRETT, SID KLEIN, AS CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, LT. ROBERT BEKKER, AS POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AND THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, 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.
Appellants Michael and Kathleen Pinchot challenged two summary judgments entered against them in their action for damages arising from Michael Pinchot's alleged false arrest by a Clearwater police officer shortly after cashing a check at First Florida Bank. The court reversed both summary judgments, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as a matter of law.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the bank employee acted reasonably and in good faith in relaying information, and as to the propriety of the officer's stop. The appellees failed to carry their heavy burden of conclusively demonstrating that the nonmoving party could not prevail.
[1] Summary judgment is improper 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…
[2] The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The burden is on the movant to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail.”
Establishes the stringent standard for summary judgment motions in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Pinchot was allegedly falsely arrested by a Clearwater police officer shortly after cashing a check at First Florida Bank. The Pinchots filed …
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 On Movant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Michael Pinchot and Kathleen Pinchot, husband and wife, challenge two final summary judgments entered against them in their action against several defendants. One judgment was entered in favor of First Florida Banks, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and its employee Olga Barrett. The other was entered in favor of Sid Klein, as Chief of Police of the City of Clearwater, Lt. Robert Bekker, as a police officer for the City of Clearwater, and the City of Clear-water, Florida. We reverse.
Appellants filed this action for damages alleging, among other things, that appellant Michael Pinchot was falsely arrested by a Clearwater police officer shortly after cashing a cheek at First Florida Bank. The appellants’ fourth amended complaint alleged various causes of action against the bank and additional ones, including section 1983 claims, against the City of Clearwater, Lt. Robert Bekker, and the chief of police.
After the action was at issue, the city, the chief of police, and Lt. Bekker moved for a summary judgment and shortly thereafter the bank and Olga Barrett also sought a summary judgment. Both motions were granted and the appellants filed separate notices of appeal from the two final summary judgments entered by the trial court. This court consolidated the two appeals.
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).
The burden is on the movant to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
See also Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
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. The appellees did not carry this heavy burden and the summary judgments, therefore, should not have been granted.
In order to affirm a summary judgment in favor of the bank and its employee, we would have' to hold that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the bank’s employee acted reasonably and in good faith in relaying information she received from another source. We cannot malee this holding because at this stage of the proceedings the record does not even establish what information she had in her possession when she spoke to other employees of the subject bank. See Pokorny v.
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 382 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1980). See also Snyder. In order to affirm the summary judgment in favor of the city, the chief of police, and Lt. Bekker, we would have to hold that no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning the propriety of Lt. Bekker’s actions when he stopped the appellant, Michael Pin-chot. Based upon the record presented to us we cannot do so. Snyder. Because the record reflects the existence of the above genuine issues of material fact, as well as others, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
We find no merit in appellants’ contention that the trial court erred, under the circumstances that existed at the time, in denying their motion to amend the complaint to add another party.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Competelli v. City OF Belleair Bluffs, 113 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citing Mejiah v. Rodriguez, 342 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)). The burden on these points rested with the City as the movant. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510; Pinchot v. First Fla. Banks, Inc., 666 So. 2d 201, 201-02 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Snyder). The City urges us to adopt the burden-shifting analysis employed by federal courts typically in employment discrimination cases. See generally McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct.…
-
Pyjek v. Valleycrest Landscape Dev., Inc., 116 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…yder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citing Mejiah v. Rodriguez, 342 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)). The burden on these points rested with ... the movant. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510; Pinehot v. First Fla. Banks, Inc., 666 So. 2d 201, 201-02 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Snyder). Competelli v. City of Belleair Bluffs, 2013 WL 1352480, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D773, D773 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.5, 2013). Our review, of course, is limited to the record before the trial court. See Easterling v. Ke…
-
Mobley v. Homestead Hosp., Inc., 291 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Gonzalez v. B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc., 692 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The existence of a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment. Pinchot v. First Fla. Banks, Inc., 666 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Moreover, “[s]ummary judgments should be cautiously granted in negligence and malpractice suits.” Davis v. Green, 625 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In a medical malpractice action, accrual of a cause of action under…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- 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)
- Pokorny v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Largo, 382 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1980)