HELEN TAMM AND DAN BOBEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEVIN T. BRADLEY, 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 appellants purchased assets of The Shoppin-Guide, Inc. and sued the appellee for common law fraud and statutory violations under Florida's securities laws, claiming he made false representations about ownership interests and corporate viability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment.
The appellate court reversed the summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the extent of the appellee's role in the fraud and investment violations. The moving party failed to demonstrate conclusively that the appellants could not prevail, and the record raised factual questions that precluded summary judgment as a matter of law.
[1] Summary judgment is improper if the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of an issue, or if the record raises even the…
[2] A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing irrefutably 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“a motion for summary judgment should not be granted unless 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”
Establishes the rigorous standard for summary judgment 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 intelligenceThe appellants purchased assets of The Shoppin-Guide, Inc. The appellee, as a defendant, allegedly made representations to the appellants as part of a…
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 Misrepresentation Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves a dispute arising from the purchase of the assets of The Shoppin-Guide, Inc. The appellants, the plaintiffs in the trial court, were the purchasers of the assets. They sued four defendants, including the appellee, in a multieount complaint. The appellants contend the summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee on the two counts against him was error. One count naming the appellee sounded in common law fraud and the other claimed damages pursuant to violations of section 517.301(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). We reverse.
The appellants claimed in their complaint that the appellee made several representations to them as part of a plan to induce them into buying the assets of The Shoppin-Guide Inc. which were false and misleading as to the true situation of the company and its assets. In particular, the appellants claimed that the appellee misrepresented material facts about his ownership interest in the assets sold to the appellants and the corporate viability of the company. Contrary to the appellee’s arguments on appeal, we find the facts material and disputed.
We have consistently held that a motion for summary judgment should not be granted unless 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. This is indeed a heavy burden. Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (party moving for summary judgment has burden of establishing irrefutably that the nonmoving party cannot prevail); Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
The appellee, as the movant, must demonstrate conclusively that the appellants could not prevail. “If the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of an issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper.” Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So. 2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The appellee, in his motion for summary judgment and in the other pleadings and evidence in the record, has not shown the absence of disputed material fact or that the appellants are conclusively unable to prevail. Because we find there was a disputed issue about the extent of the appellee’s role in the fraud and investment violations allegedly perpetrated upon the appellants, the case against the appellee cannot be resolved by summary judgment. Leroux v. Nynex Worldwide Serv. Group, 677 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings in the trial court.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borowski v. Kimmins Contracting Corp., 713 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…t in favor of Kimmins Contracting Corporation. Borowski’s cause of action is for nuisance related to a construction project. We reverse because genuine issues of material fact remain which preclude the entry of summary judgment. See Tamm v. Bradley, 696 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of Borowski’s complaint. PATTERSON, A.C. J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- 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)
- Leroux v. Nynex Worldwide Servs. Grp., Inc., 677 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- D.W.P. v. State, 677 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)