FRANK ORDZIEJESKI, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID FREUDENBERG, VILLAGE POINTE REALTY, LLC, D/B/A WEICHERT, REALTORS-VILLAGE POINT, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, GEMMA SICOLO AND PATRICIA FREUDENBERG, 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.
In this real estate dispute, a property seller refused to close on a contract, claiming fraudulent inducement. The buyer sued for specific performance and breach of contract, while the seller sued his realtors for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the seller on the buyer's claims but reversed summary judgment against the seller's third-party defendants due to material factual disputes.
The court affirmed the final judgment in favor of Ordziejeski on Freudenberg's claims because the jury found in his favor on the affirmative defenses. However, the court reversed the summary judgment against the third-party defendants because material issues of fact existed regarding their potential liability, and the partial summary judgment was erroneous as it did not properly account for the affirmative defenses.
[1] A partial summary judgment on a breach of contract claim is erroneous if material issues of fact exist regarding affirmative defenses that were not resolved by the summar…
[2] A trial court errs by granting summary judgment in favor of third-party defendants when material issues of fact remain regarding the underlying claims.
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“Although the trial court entered a partial summary judgment on breach of contract liability, it is apparent that the court did not consider that the partial summary judgment disposed of the affirmative defenses as the court submitted them to the jury, and the jury found in favor of Ordziejeski.”
Explains why the breach of contract summary judgment did not result in reversal despite being erroneous, because the affirmative defenses were still submitted to and decided by the jury in plaintiff's favor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Freudenberg entered into a contract to purchase property from Frank Ordziejeski. Ordziejeski refused to proceed with closing, claiming the contr…
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 Common Law Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
This court consolidated two appeals, including a cross-appeal from two final judgments entered in a real estate contract dispute. David Freudenberg entered into a contract to purchase Frank Ordziejeski’s property. Believing that the contract had been fraudulently induced, Ordziejeski refused to proceed with the closing. Freudenberg filed a complaint for specific performance and breach of contract. Ordziejeski answered raising fraudulent inducement and unclean hands as affirmative defenses. Ordziejeski also filed a third-party complaint against his realtors for common law indemnity, breach of fiduciary obligation, and fraud.
Freudenberg moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and the trial court granted the motion. Based upon that order, the third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court also granted. Ordziejeski appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of the third-party defendants in case number 4D07-4972.
*1191The contract case went to trial and the issues raised by the affirmative defenses were submitted to the jury. The jury found in favor of Ordziejeski, and the trial court entered a final judgment in his favor. Freudenberg appeals the final judgment in favor of Ordziejeski in case number 4D07-4978.
We affirm the final judgment in favor of Ordziejeski on Freudenberg’s claims. Although the trial court entered a partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, it is apparent that the court did not consider that the partial summary judgment disposed of the affirmative defenses as the court submitted them to the jury, and the jury found in favor of Ord-ziejeski. No reversible error has occurred.
However, we also note that the entry of the partial summary judgment on breach of contract liability would have been error if it had included a rejection of the affirmative defenses because material issues of fact abounded. The trial court erred in entering the partial summary judgment.
Normally, we may not have commented on the error in entering partial summary judgment where we are affirming the ultimate final judgment. However, the partial summary judgment also prompted the trial court to enter a judgment in favor of the third-party defendants. That too was error, as material issues of fact were present. We reverse the judgment in case number 4D07-4972. Although the final judgment in favor of Ordziejeski may mean that the third-party claims will not go forward on remand, our resolution of this issue will impact any future awards of attorney’s fees.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
WARNER, HAZOURI, JJ., and SHAHOOD, GEORGE A., Senior Judge, concur.