BERNARD WENDT, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD LASKE, 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 trial court erred by granting summary judgment without properly addressing the defendant's affirmative defenses.
[1] A summary judgment order must adequately address all affirmative defenses raised by the defendant.
[2] The burden is on the plaintiff to conclusively demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue regarding the viability of the defendant's affirmative defenses.
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 intelligencePlaintiffs sued defendant for selling unregistered securities and making false statements. Defendant asserted affirmative defenses, including statute …
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 Sale Of Unregistered Securities cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Wendt challenges the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of Edward and Ruth Laske and the class they represent.
We reverse because Mr. Wendt raised affirmative defenses which were not properly addressed in the trial court’s summary judgment order. The Laskes, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, sued Mr. Wendt alleging that securities which he sold to them were not properly registered, and that the presentations and documents provided by him contained false statements of material fact. Mr. Wendt answered the complaint generally denying liability and asserting several affirmative defenses including a statute of limitations defense. Soon thereafter the Laskes filed a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted the motion, ruling that Mr. Wendt had “not submitted an affidavit or expert opinion to contest the actual allegations or opinions set forth in plaintiffs motion.” The trial court later entered judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the Laskes and reserved ruling on the issue of damages. This appeal followed.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly ruled upon Mr. Wendt’s affirmative defenses.
We conclude that the court’s summary judgment order fails to adequately address the viability of all of the affirmative defenses raised and that the court improperly placed the burden on Mr. Wendt to prove his defenses. To that end, the law in Florida places the burden on the plaintiff to conclusively demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue regarding the viability of the defendant’s affirmative defenses. See City of Miami v. Gates, 393 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 608 (Fla.1981); see also Fasano v. Hicks, 667 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of the Laskes and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions that the court rule on the legal sufficiency of Mr. Wendt’s affirmative defenses.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, COBB and W. SHARP, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stop & Shoppe Mart, Inc. v. Zahra Mehdi, 854 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…e considered when ruling on summary judgment motion). The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it failed to reverse the county court judgment that ignored Stop & Shoppe’s affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Wendt v. Laske, 760 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), (reversing a summary judgment where affirmative defenses were raised which were not addressed in the trial court’s order); Fla. Dep’t. of Agric, v. Go Bungee, Inc., 678 So. 2d at 921, (holding that the trial court’s failure to a…
-
Sanchez v. Soleil Builders, Inc., 98 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…firmative defenses, the burden of disproving the affirmative defenses has not been met.” (citations omitted)). The entry of summary judgment where affirmative defenses are extant is error. Stop & Shoppe Mart, Inc., 854 So. 2d at 787; Wendt v. Laske, 760 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), (reversing summary judgment where affirmative defenses were raised that were not addressed in trial court’s order); Fla. Dep’t of Agrie, v. Go Bungee, Inc., 678 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding trial court’s failure…
Authorities Cited
- Barney v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 393 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Pasquale Enzo Fasano v. Henry W. Hicks, P.A., 667 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)