MANASSAS INVESTMENTS, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION; YOUSSEF ZAITOUNI; AND ZOOX INVESTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD J.A. O'HANRAHAN, JR., AS TRUSTEE OF THE O'HANRAHAN REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Manassas Investments, Inc., Youssef Zaitouni, and Zoox Investments, Inc., appeal the order granting summary judgment in favor of the trustee of the O’Hanrahan Trust in a foreclosure action. Because the record contains disputed issues of material facts, including the mov-ant’s failure to address Manassas’ affirmative defenses, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
O’Hanrahan’s affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment averred default on three violations of the mortgage agreement: the transfer of the property, the nonpayment of 1999 personal property taxes, and the nonpayment of 1998 and 1999 real property taxes. Manassas’ legally sufficient affirmative defenses were completely unrefuted. For the movant to prevail on a summary judgment motion, he or she must either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient. See Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). O’Hanrahan failed to do either. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morroni v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 903 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ment must not only establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to the party’s claims but must also either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient); Manassas Inves., Inc. v. O’Hanrahan, 817 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that in order for the movant to prevail on a summary judgment motion, movant must either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient). In addition, the trial court should have…
-
Eliezier Leal and Clara Leon v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 21 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…defenses raised, or establish that the defenses are insufficient as a matter of law.” Kendall Coffey, Foreclosures in Florida 493 (2008) (citing Stop & Shoppe Mart, Inc. v. Mehdi, 854 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Manassas Inn, Inc. v. O’Hanrahan, 817 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). The Bank’s motion failed to address the affirmative defenses. Among these were a claim that the defendants had not received a notice of acceleration and right to reinstate. Such a notice appears to be required by this mortgage.…
-
AT&T Wireless & Kemper Ins. v. Frazier, 871 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…becomes evident only after the merits hearing has begun, and even if neither party requests appointment of an EMA. See Palm Springs General Hospital v. Cabrera, 698 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). See also Martinez v. Healthsouth Doctor's Hospital, 817 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Helmsman Management Services v. Garner, 725 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Claims Management, Inc. v. Lake, 717 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). And see Broward Children’s Center, Inc. v. Hall 859 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco OIL Co., 660 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)