AZITA BEHNAM, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
JAFAR MAMAGHANI ZADEH, ET AL., FORMER HUSBAND, 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 court held that a final summary judgment cannot be entered without a motion for summary judgment being filed.
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the former husband filed a motion to dismiss, alleging res judicata barred the action. The trial court entere…
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 Sufficiency Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Azita Behnam, the former wife, challenges a final summary judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Because there was no motion for summary judgment before the trial court, entry of an order granting such was in error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The parties were married in Iran in 1981. After separating in August 2009, the former wife left Iran and relocated to Gainesville, Florida. The former wife filed a petition for support unconnected with dissolution of marriage, which was later amended to a petition for dissolution of marriage.
The former husband filed multiple motions to dismiss, the last of which is at issue here. In pertinent part, the former husband’s motion alleged that the parties had already been divorced in Iran, and as such, the doctrine of res judicata barred the former wife from further litigating the issue. In response to the motion to dismiss, the trial court entered an order granting final summary judgment for the former husband.
It was error to treat the former husband’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. As explained in Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So.2d 621, 623-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994),
[cjounsel must remember that [a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss have] separate purpose[s] under our rules of civil procedure. A motion to dismiss is customarily designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action, not to determine issues of ultimate fact. The function of a motion for summary judgment is to determine if the parties can offer sufficient proof to support the issues framed in their pleadings.
See also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bohatka, 112 So.3d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Because the trial court erred in treating the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings. Given our disposition as to this issue, all other issues raised on appeal are moot.
CLARK and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Doepker, 223 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…omplaint to state a cause of action, not to determine issues of ultimate fact. The function of a motion for summary judgment is to determine if the parties can offer sufficient proof to support the issues framed in their pleadings. Behnam v. Zadeh, 132 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Holland, 643 So. 2d at 623-24). Because the bank’s notice of default substantially complied with paragraph 22 in this case, the Doepkers’ motion should not have been grante…
-
Stevie Howard v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ay of a motion to dismiss, the trial court deprived Howard of the opportunity to fully respond to Greenwich’s affirmative defenses.5 It was error to treat Greenwich’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment.6 As explained in Behnam v. Zadeh, 132 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), [c]ounsel must remember that [a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss have] separate purpose[s] under our rules of civil procedure. A motion to dismiss is customarily designed to test the legal sufficiency of…
-
The Kidwell Grp., LLC v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla. (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Bohatka, 112 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)