CHARLES M. LEVIN, APPELLANT,
v.
SHEILA KLEEMAN, 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.
Charles Levin appeals a summary judgment entered against him in a dispute with his mother over an allegedly unpaid loan. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court granted summary judgment without any motion for summary judgment being pending.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment when no motion for summary judgment was pending. Summary judgment cannot be granted absent a pending motion for summary judgment as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510.
[1] A trial court may not grant summary judgment when no motion for summary judgment is pending before it.
[2] A successor judge cannot grant a motion that was previously denied without a new motion being filed.
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“The trial court erred in granting summary judgment when no motion for summary judgment was pending.”
Establishes the core holding and legal error in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheila Kleeman claimed her son Charles Levin failed to repay a sizeable loan. Kleeman initially filed an unsworn motion for summary judgment that was …
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 Motion Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
Charles Levin appeals a final summary judgment entered against him and in favor of his mother, Sheila Kleeman. The final judgment was based on Kleeman’s claim that she loaned Levin a sizeable amount of money that he failed to repay. As the trial court noted, this litigation has been lengthy, contentious, and vexatious.1 Resolution of this appeal requires only a limited discussion of its procedural history.
Kleeman filed an unsworn motion for summary judgment. After numerous efforts to have the motion heard, the trial court ultimately conducted a hearing and denied Kleeman’s motion. Both parties continued to file a series of motions; however, Kleeman neither corrected the deficiencies in the earlier motion nor did she file a new motion for summary judgment. The court then entered an order setting “All Pending Motions” for a status hearing on January 9,2017.
A successor judge presided at the January 9, 2017 status hearing. Although Klee-man’s motion for summary judgment had previously been denied, and Kleeman had not filed a new motion, the court entered summary judgment in Kleeman’s favor. Levin moved for rehearing and to vacate the summary judgment order.2 The court denied the motion for rehearing, struck the motion to vacate, and entered final judgment in favor of Kleeman.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment when no motion for summary judgment was pending. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510; see also Kelly v. Militana, 595 So.2d 113, 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[A] trial court may not grant a summary judgment where there is no motion pending .... ” (citing Muncey v. Star Brite Distribs., Inc., 378 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980))). Therefore, we are compelled to reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 236 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…t opportunity. Furthermore, the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment on all claims when the only motion for summary judgment addressed Count One and there was no motion for summary judgment regarding Count Two. See Levin v. Kleeman , 229 So. 3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (holding that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment where there was no motion pending). Here, the trial court's final judgment discussed evidence, issues, and findings that were relevant only to the gender dis…
-
Hall v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Geico Indem. Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic P.A. (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Cedar Mountain Ests., LLC v. Loan ONE, LLC, 4 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Muncey v. Star Brite Distribs., Inc., 378 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kelly v. Militana, 595 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)