JAMES T. BUSH AND DOROTHY B. BUSH, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, 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 Bushes appealed a summary judgment entered against them on the morning of trial without proper notice or hearing. The court reversed, holding that Florida's strict procedural requirements for summary judgment motions protect a litigant's constitutional right to a trial on the merits and cannot be disregarded.
A trial court commits reversible error by granting a summary judgment motion that was not properly noticed for hearing, absent consent or waiver by the opposing party. The strict procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 are mandatory protections of constitutional rights, not mere technicalities.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by granting a motion for summary judgment that was not properly noticed for hearing, absent consent or waiver by the opposing party…
[2] Strict procedural requirements for summary judgment motions are designed to protect a litigant's constitutional right to a trial on the merits.
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“The strict procedural requirements for summary judgment motions contained in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 are designed to protect a litigant's constitutional right to a trial on the merits of a particular claim.”
Establishes the constitutional foundation for procedural rules governing 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 intelligenceThe case involved multiple pleading and procedural errors throughout the litigation, including inadequate written orders, unresolved affirmative defen…
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 Summary Judgment Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
James T. and Dorothy B. Bush appeal the final summary judgment entered against them on the morning of trial. Because the trial court erred by granting a motion for summary judgment that was neither noticed for hearing nor pending before the court, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
This case is a pleading and procedural morass. The unique pleading errors were particularly compounded by the trial court’s failure to enter written orders. The pleading and discovery stage errors contributed to the parties arriving for trial with unanswered affirmative defenses, with perhaps an oral ruling allowing the plaintiffs to file a reply thereto, and a motion for summary judgment the court had orally denied, but the appropriate order had never been entered. On the morning of trial, the final summary judgment was entered on a motion that had previously been orally denied and was not noticed for hearing.
The strict procedural requirements for summary judgment motions contained in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 are designed to protect a litigant’s constitutional right to a trial on the merits of a particular claim. See Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As pointed out in Bifulco, “They are not merely procedural niceties nor technicalities.” 693 So. 2d at 709. Clearly, the granting of a motion for summary judgment that was not properly noticed for hearing is reversible error, absent consent or waiver by the opposing party.
We reverse the final summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings. Because of the procedural problems, we are compelled to provide specific directions to the parties to be followed on remand. Although the record is rich with discovery, this litigation involves inadequate and unresolved procedural and pleading concerns. Therefore, the parties shall be given an opportunity to finalize the pleadings, including pleading any appropriate affirmative defenses and replies. Thereafter, the case shall proceed in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. City Towing LLC (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…e principle that a judgment entered pre-trial should be subject to a heightened level of appellate scrutiny as a matter of due process, compared to a judgment entered after a full and fair trial on the merits. See Bush v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 711 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Bifulco v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)) ("The strict procedural requirements for summary judgment motions contained in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 are designed to…
Authorities Cited
- Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)