RUQUYYA COPELAND, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA NEW INVESTMENTS CORP. AND JOHN WALTERS, 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.
Ruquyya Copeland appealed a summary judgment entered against her in a real property transaction dispute involving two quitclaim deeds and allegations of fraud. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment on the grounds that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial, while affirming the trial court's order setting aside a default judgment.
The court reversed the summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed that required resolution by the trier of fact, while affirming the trial court's order setting aside the default judgment.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist.
[2] A trial court's order setting aside a default judgment may be affirmed even if other aspects of the case are reversed and remanded.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact.”
Establishes the strict standard for granting summary judgment in Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCopeland alleged that Florida New Investments Corp. and John Walters convinced her to execute two quitclaim deeds—one from Copeland to FNI and one fro…
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 Quiet Title cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Appellant/Plaintiff, Ruquyya Copeland (“Copeland”), appeals a Final Summary Judgment entered against her. Copeland raises three issues in her appeal, only one of which needs to be addressed. She claims the trial court erred in entering summary judgment as there remain genuine issues of material fact. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This convoluted case arises out of a transaction for the purchase and sale of real property. Copeland alleges in her Amended Complaint that Florida New In vestments (“FNI”) and John Walters (“Walters”), individually, wanted to purchase property owned by her, and convinced her to execute two quitclaim deeds, one from Copeland to Florida New Investments and one from Florida New Investments to Copeland. Copeland claims that Walters represented that neither of the quitclaim deeds would be recorded until the transaction was consummated. The sale was not consummated and FNI recorded the quitclaim deed from Copeland to FNI. Copeland then brought a two-count amended complaint to quiet title and cancel the quitclaim deed and for damages for fraud.
This litigation has followed a very tortuous and unnecessary path due to the filings and alleged actions of the parties. The record shows that the trial judge labored diligently to attempt to resolve the myriad of issues and motions that have arisen.
A summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). If a record reveals the possibility of genuine issues of material fact, or even the slightest doubt, summary judgment should be denied. Besco USA Int’l v. Home Savings of America FSB, 675 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see Carbajo v. City of Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In reviewing the record and the affidavits filed by both Walters and Copeland throughout this litigation, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. Therefore, we reverse and remand on those grounds.1 We affirm the trial court’s July 31, 2002 order setting aside the Final Default Judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
. We need not address the issue of whether or not Copeland received notice of the summary judgment hearing as that issue is now moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rakusin LAW Firm & Gerald Damsky, P.A. v. In re Est. OF Richard A. Dennis, 27 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…CORTINAS, J. It is well established that “summary judgment should be granted only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact,” Copeland v. Fla. New Invs. Corp., 905 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966)), and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [*167] Carpineta v. Shields, 70 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla.1954) (citing Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.). If the pleadin…
-
Austin Bldg. Co. v. Rago, Ltd., 63 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…f disputed, material issues of fact, summary judgment is erroneous. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla.2000); Rakusin Law Firm v. Estate of Dennis, 27 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Copeland v. Fla. New Invs. Corp., 905 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). “[0]n review of an order granting summary judgment, we are required to review the record de novo and construe all facts in a fashion most favorable to the non-movant.” Ortega v. Eng’g Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525, 527, 53…
-
Inger Sofe Savas Berkow v. Isaevna, 983 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…hat there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Appellees were legitimate heirs of the decedent. Hence, the court erred in granting summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Copeland v. Fla. New Invs., Corp., 905 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The Appellants had presented affidavits asserting that all of the decedent’s heirs above them in the statutory hierarchy had died, § 732.103, Fla. Stat. (2004), arguably entitling them to the funds. They had also presented a…
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
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Besco USA Int'l Corp. v. Home Sav. OF Am. FSB, 675 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Carbajo v. City OF Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)