SUNRISE LAKES CONDOMINIUM APTS. PHASE III, INC. 5, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY FRANK, ETC., JANIS FLEISCHMAN, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment because the lack of a trial transcript prevents review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Any error in denying summary judgment is rendered moot by the subsequent trial judgment.
Sunrise Lakes appealed a non-jury trial judgment denying its complaint for injunctive and other relief, arguing insufficient evidence. It also challen…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Sunrise Lakes Condominium Apartments, Phase III, Inc. 5 (“Sunrise Lakes”) appéals the entry of final judgment after a non-jury trial denying its complaint for injunctive and other relief. Sunrise Lakes argues the trial court’s decision was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. No transcript of the non-jury trial was provided. Therefore, we are compelled to affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
Sunrise Lakes also challenges the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on the same complaint. Since review of an order on summary judgment is a question of law, the rule in Applegate does not apply. Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So.2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). However, we determine that any error in failing to enter summary judgment on behalf of Sunrise Lakes is moot in light of the trial court’s judgment against Sunrise Lakes at trial. We agree with the reasoning in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Rucker Construction, Inc., 285 Ga.App. 844, 648 S.E.2d 170 (2007):
After verdict and judgment, it is too late to review a judgment denying a summary judgment, for that judgment becomes moot when the court reviews the evidence upon the trial of the ease. Stated differently, where a motion for summary judgment is overruled on an issue and the case proceeds to trial and the evidence at the trial authorizes the verdict (judgment) on that issue, any *902error in overruling the motion for summary judgment is harmless.
Id. at 172 (emphasis in original) (quotations omitted); see also Brannan v. Wyeth Lab., Inc., 516 So.2d 157, 164 (La.App.1987), aff'd and rev’d in part on other grounds, 526 So.2d 1101 (La.1988).
Affirmed.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anastacia S. Lacombe and Max P. Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Long Beach Mortg. Loan Tr., 149 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…motion for summary judgment. However, the trial of the issue of fact regarding plaintiffs right to enforce the note via ownership thereof rendered any error in the denial of summary judgment moot. Sunrise Lakes Condo. Apts. Phase III, Inc. v. Frank, 73 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We decline to remand the case for the presentation of additional evidence because “appellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to retry their case upon a failure of proof.” Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. v.…
-
Ioannides v. Romagosa, 93 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…nc., 984 So. 2d 564, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Sumner Grp., Inc. v. M.C. Distributec, Inc., 949 So. 2d 1205,1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Dr. Romagosa argues that our recent decision in Sunrise Lakes Condominium Apts. Phase III, Inc. 5 v. Frank, 73 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), bars Dr. Ioannides from challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on appeal because judgment was entered against him after a full trial on the merits. In Sunrise Lakes, we stated “that any error in…
-
Atallah v. Transworld Bus. Brokers of Fla., LLC, 297 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…hearing on summary judgment. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). However, review of a summary judgment is a matter of law, and Applegate does not apply. Sunrise Lakes Condo. Apts. Phase III, Inc. 5 v. Frank, 73 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “Summary judgment cannot be granted unless the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fac…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)