SOUTHERN WASTE SYSTEMS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SOUTHERN WASTE SYSTEMS, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP; AND ANTHONY LOMANGINO, APPELLANTS,
v.
J & A TRANSFER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; J & A RECYCLING, INC.; A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION; RITEWAY RECYCLING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; NU-WAY RECYCLING CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; MAGIC SITE SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; JOHN PORTER; AND ANTHONY MASIELLO, 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 the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action.
Southern Waste purchased assets from J & A via contract, which included a mortgage. Southern Waste sued J & A, alleging fraud, but failed to amend the…
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 Fraudulent Inducement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the motion for rehearing, but withdraw our opinion dated June 2, 2004, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
We affirm a final summary judgment in favor of J & A in this action to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgage arose out of a contract between the parties for Southern Waste’s purchase of assets owned by J & A, including various businesses and real property.
The record reflects that Southern Waste’s fraud claim was dismissed with leave to amend; however, Southern Waste failed to amend the claim. Further, although Southern Waste alleged fraud in the inducement as an affirmative defense, they asserted no facts in support of their general allegation that the contract was induced by false representations with respect to future business. There is also no indication of Southern Waste’s ability to present evidence in support of the defenses.
Therefore, the record supports a conclusion that there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 45 (Fla.1966); Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
As to the other issues raised, we also find no reversible error and affirm.
STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eliezier Leal and Clara Leon v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 21 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…avit in opposition are conclusory. “Where there are no facts pled to support general allegations of affirmative defenses, the defenses are legally insufficient.” Kendall Coffey, supra, at 493 (citing Southern Waste Sys., LLC v. J & A Transfer, Inc., 879 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). At the summary judgment hearing, the borrowers also maintained that summary judgment should not be granted because of pending discovery. To the extent that the pending discovery was directed to the issue of standing, that…
-
Sasha Kaminik and Paul Connolly v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 64 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). As to the defense of unclean hands, no fact in the record and nothing in the briefing supports that defense. See Tacher v. Helm Bank, 50 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); S. Waste Sys., LLC v. J & A Transfer, Inc., 879 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We reverse the award of $4,685.50 in attorney’s fees because appellee’s affidavit stated that $887 was a reasonable fee, creating an issue of fact as to the amount to be awarded. We also reverse the award of $14,120.08 in in…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Cufferi v. Royal Palm Dev. Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)