IN RE THE ESTATE OF CARLOS RUMALDO HERRERA, TERESA GUERRERO, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, APPELLANT,
v.
BERLO INDUSTRIES INC. AND JAFFER ASSOCIATES, INC., 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 court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the appellant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact and raised issues for the first time on appeal.
The Estate of Carlos Rumaldo Herrera appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Jaffer Associates, Inc. Herrera argued that summary judgment was …
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Estate of Carlos Rumaldo Herrera and Teresa Guerrero as Personal Representative (“Herrera”) appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellees, Jaf-fer Associates, Inc. (“Jaffer”). We affirm the trial court’s order because Herrera has not established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Martin Petroleum Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
In addition, we reject Herrera’s argument that summary judgment was error because discovery had not been completed. Summary judgment may be granted, even though discovery has not been completed, when the future discovery will not create a disputed issue of material fact. See A & B Discount Lumber & Supply, Inc. v. Mitchell, 799 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Crespo v. Florida Entm’t Direct Support Org., Inc., 674 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“A trial court has the discretion to deny a continuance of a summary judgment hearing where the outstanding discovery items are immaterial to the disposi-tive issues in the case.”). Here, future discovery would not yield any new information that the trial court either did not already know, or needed to make its ruling.
Lastly, Herrera seeks to raise issues which were not raised in the trial court. However, issues not presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Gisela Invs., N.V. v. Liberty Mut. Insur. Co., 452 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Thus, Herrera is precluded from raising new arguments on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Cong. Park Off. Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 105 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…incomplete discovery will not raise future disputed issues of material fact, summary judgment may be properly granted.” Osorto v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 88 So. 3d 261, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Estate of Herrera v. Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)). The Trial Court Did Not Err in Granting Summary Judgment Pending Discovery Because the Borrowers Failed to Act Diligently Another reason why the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting First-Citizens’ motion…
-
Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp., 967 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…judgment was Barco able to demonstrate otherwise. “Summary judgment may be granted, even though discovery has not been completed, when the future discovery will not create a disputed issue of material fact.” Estate of Herrera v. Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Further, “[a] trial court has the discretion to deny a continuance of a summary judgment hearing where the outstanding discovery items are immaterial to the dispositive issues in the case.” Crespo v. Fla. Entm’t Direct Suppo…
-
Avi Harel v. Kabel- X USA, LLC, 362 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…t for decision. Under such circumstances it must be held . . . that [the appellate court is] under no duty to answer the question.” (quoting Lynn v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955))); Est. of Herrera v. Berlo Indus., Inc., 840 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[Appellant] seeks to raise issues which were not raised in the trial court. However, issues not presented in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, [appellant] is precluded from raising new…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin Petroleum Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Al Crespo v. Fla. Ent. Direct Support Org., Inc., 674 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Nazario v. Nazario, 452 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Gisela Invs. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- A & B Disc. Lumber & Supply, Inc. v. Mitchell, 799 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)