LAZAR LEYBOVICH, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SECUREALERT, INC., 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 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District reversed a summary judgment in favor of SecureAlert, Inc. on the Leyboviches' breach of contract claim, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded entry of summary judgment and required the case to proceed to trial.
The Court reversed the summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding (i) whether the Leyboviches signed and delivered the Stock Redemption Agreements; (ii) whether they executed and returned their stock certificates; and (iii) whether they were precluded by estoppel or waiver, and that the scintilla of evidence in the record was sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
[1] Genuine issues of material fact regarding the execution and delivery of agreements preclude summary judgment.
[2] A plaintiff's affidavit and interrogatory responses, even if scant, may be sufficient to raise issues of fact precluding summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the record on appeal reveals the merest possibility of genuine issues of material fact, or even the slightest doubt in this respect, the summary judgment must be reversed.”
Establishes the standard for reversing summary judgment on appeal when any genuine issue of material fact exists.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Leyboviches were plaintiffs in a breach of contract action against SecureAlert, Inc. regarding December 2007 Stock Redemption Agreements. SecureAl…
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 Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
Lazar, Dovie and Ben Leybovich, the plaintiffs below, appeal an order granting final summary judgment in favor of SecureAlert, Inc., the defendant below, on their claim for breach of contract. The Leyboviches argue that: (i) the trial court's sua sponte reconsideration of SecureAlert's, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment violated their due process rights; (ii) the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in finding that their breach of contract action was barred by a release contained in a prior settlement agreement between the parties; and (iii) there are issues of material fact that must be resolved by a jury. Because we agree with the Leyboviches that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment, we reverse the order granting final summary judgment and remand for a trial.1
A careful review of the appellate record reveals genuine issues of material fact as to whether: (i) the Leyboviches signed and delivered the December 2007 Stock Redemption Agreements - the agreements on which this breach of contract action is based - to SecureAlert; (ii) the Leyboviches executed and returned their respective stock certificates to SecureAlert pursuant to the December 2007 Stock Redemption Agreements; and (iii) the Leyboviches, by their conduct, are precluded from maintaining this breach of contract action under the doctrines of estoppel and waiver. While Lazar Leybovich's affidavit and interrogatory *1105responses may be scant evidence on these issues, it is nevertheless sufficient evidence to raise issues of fact so as preclude entry of final summary judgment in favor of SecureAlert on any of these three grounds. See Piedra v. City of N. Bay Vill., 193 So.3d 48, 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("If the record on appeal reveals the merest possibility of genuine issues of material fact, or even the slightest doubt in this respect, the summary judgment must be reversed."); Carnes v. Fender, 936 So.2d 11, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("Such evidence is sufficient to constitute the scintilla of appreciable evidence required to defeat a motion for summary judgment.").
Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment entered in favor of SecureAlert.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melitina Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Co., Inc., 254 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…s the possibility of genuine issues of material fact, or even the slightest doubt in this respect, the summary judgment should be reversed." Carbajo v. City of Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425, 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). See also Leybovich v. SecureAlert, Inc., 237 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; Piedra v. City of N. Bay Vill., 193 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; Aguero v. First Am. Ins. Co., 927 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ; Copeland v. Florida New Inv. Corp., 905 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ; Sierra v. Shevin, 767 S…
-
Silvana Capuzzo v. Joch (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Carnes v. T.D. Fender, 936 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Piedra v. City OF N. BAY Vill., 193 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Enriquez v. State, 193 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)