ROBERT C. SEAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EUNICE CHRISTENSEN, ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
GARY BROWN AND LANIE BROWN, 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 appellants, as representatives of deceased sellers, appealed summary judgment dismissing their claims that the buyers fraudulently purchased their property while the sellers lacked capacity. The court reversed, finding disputed material facts existed regarding the sellers' understanding of the transaction and the buyers' knowledge of capacity issues, and held that an evidentiary hearing was required on the motion to vacate.
The court reversed the summary judgment and order denying the motion to vacate because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether the sellers understood the transaction and whether the buyers knew or should have known of any lack of capacity; further, an evidentiary hearing was required before the motion to vacate could be denied.
[1] A summary judgment is improper when disputed issues of material fact exist regarding a party's understanding of a transaction and the other party's knowledge of any lack…
[2] A party moving to vacate an order allowing the sale of real property is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when their allegations raise a colorable entitlement to relief…
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“if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied”
Establishes the standard for denying summary judgment when material fact disputes exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEverett and Eunice Christensen owned real and personal property in Wakulla County, Florida. They sold the property to Gary and Lanie Brown at closing.…
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 Capacity To Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated cases appeal an Order Denying Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order Allowing Sale of Real Property and a Final Summary Judgment denying rescission of a contract for sale of real and personal property owned by Everett and Eunice Christensen (“sellers”) in Wa-kulla County, Florida. The underlying facts of both cases are identical. Appellants claim that Appellees knew at the time of closing that the now deceased sellers lacked capacity, that Appellees purchased the property significantly below its appraised value, Appellees exerted undue influence on the sellers and, as a result, the sale should be rescinded and/or vacated because of Appellees’ alleged actual or constructive fraud. We reverse and remand both cases for further proceedings.
In the rescission case, the trial court erred in entering Final Summary Judgment, finding it was undisputed that Everett Christensen, individually and as guardian for Eunice Christensen, understood the transaction at the time of closing. Reviewing the circumstances surrounding the closing, disputed issues of material fact exist concerning whether Everett Christensen understood the transaction and whether Appellees knew or should have known of any lack of capacity on his part, including whether Appellees were aware of pending guardianship proceedings in Thomas County, Georgia, where the Christensens lived.
Accordingly, we reverse the Final Summary Judgment, and remand for further proceedings. See Jones v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied”).
The trial court also erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing before entering the Order Denying Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order Allowing Sale of Real Property. See Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“where a moving party’s allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required”).
A full evidentiary hearing should have been granted to enable the trial court to determine whether, under the entire circumstances, the motion to vacate should have been granted based on any misrepresentations or fraudulent conduct of Appellees, who were parties to the transaction at issue. See Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 389 So. 2d 1116 (Fla.1980).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…rounds” for relief would she be entitled to a hearing on her rule 1.540(b)(3) motion. See Davenport v. Dimitrijevic, 857 So. 2d 957, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); World Inv. Corp. v. Breen, 684 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Estate of Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So. 2d 949, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Hembd failed to state the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity to require an evidentiary hearing on the motion. An important basis for the Nove…
-
Lanier Davenport v. Dimitrijevic, 857 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…idavit set forth “facially sufficient grounds” for such relief, only then were the Giles brothers entitled to a hearing on their rule 1.540(b)(3) motion. See World Inv. Corp. v. Breen, 684 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Estate of Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So. 2d 949, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Section 682.13(l)(a) contains language almost identical to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1) (2002).2 This court may therefore look to federal law to interpret sect…
-
Robinson v. Weiland, 936 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…fraud or misrepresentation with particularity, and shows how that fraud or misrepresentation affected the judgment, the trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the motion should be granted.7 See Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); St. Surin v. St. Surin, 684 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 2d DCA [*782] 1996); Estate of Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Dynasty Exp. Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So. 2d 235, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Townsend v. Lan…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Alva Ramey and Wanda L. Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)