R. J. REMINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
L. P. GUNSON & COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
In this contract dispute over the sale of watermelon seeds, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment for the seller-plaintiff, holding that the buyer-defendant's contradictory allegations in his answer and counterclaim raised genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment was improperly granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. When the defendant's answer and counterclaim directly contradict the complaint's allegations, genuine factual disputes exist that must be resolved at trial, not by summary judgment.
“it is well established that the moving party must show that there is no genuine issue of fact, and further show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment that the lower court failed to apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL. P. Gunson & Company, a seed merchant, filed a bill of complaint in March 1959 seeking payment for watermelon seeds sold and delivered to R. J. Remi…
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 To Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered against the appellant, who was defendant in the court below. We have not been favored with a brief on behalf of the appellee in this case.-
On March 9, 1959, the plaintiff, L. P. Gunson & Company, filed a bill of complaint, seeking a money judgment for watermelon seeds sold and delivered to the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. The defendant thereupon filed his answer and counterclaim, and the plaintiff filed motions to strike both of these pleadings. While these motions to strike were still pending, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on August 20, 1959. From the record, the summary judgment for the plaintiff was entered the next day. The order granting summary judgment recites that the court considered the plaintiff’s previous motions to strike the answer and counterclaim; granted these motions; and, having done so, granted summary judgment.
The answer and the counterclaim of defendant both deny plaintiff’s claim, and, in his counterclaim, the defendant seeks judgment against the plaintiff. Nowhere do we observe that the plaintiff has attached proofs to any of his pleadings, nor has he filed an affidavit to substantiate his claim. The complaint was unsworn and no statement of account was attached to it. The answer and the counterclaim may not be technically correct, but the facts which are stated therein are directly contrary to the wording of the complaint.
Rule 1.36(a), Fla.R.Civ.Pro., 30 F.S.A., allows summary judgment to be granted without supporting affidavits. However, it is well established that the moving party must show that there is no genuine issue of fact, and further show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Palov v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 780. If a doubt exists it- must be resolved iñ favor of the non-moving party. Ormsby v. Ginolfi, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 272. See also Owens v. MacKenzie, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 677. In view of this, we feel that the court’s action in granting a summary judgment to the plaintiff was premature.
The order of August 21, 1959, is-, hereby reversed insofar as it awards a summary judgment to the plaintiff. As to the defendant’s answer and counterclaim, opportunity to amend should be granted.
Reversed.
KANNER, Acting Chief Judge, and' MURPHREE, JOHN A., Associate Judge,, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Nat'l Exhibition Co. v. Ball, 139 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…y decree. Whitehall Realty Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 475; Owens v. MacKenzie, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 677; Ramagli Realty Co. v. Speier, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 71; and Remington v. L. P. Gunson & Company, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 885. Since a génuine issue of material fact exists without reference to defendant-appellant’s affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary decree, their sufficiency or insufficiency is of no moment in making disposition of this appeal. Moreover,…
-
Flamingo Blueprint, Inc. v. Monumental Props. OF Fla., Inc., 358 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…to the existence of the lease, and plaintiff’s pleading raised an issue as to an alleged condition precedent. The defense in the counterclaim is to be considered for purposes of summary disposition of the cause. Remington v. L. P. Gunson & Company, 125 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). For the reasons stated, certiorari is granted and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with direction to further remand the cause to the county court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.…
Authorities Cited
- Ormsby v. Ginolfi, 107 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- W. O. Owens and his wife v. MacKENZIE, 103 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Palov v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 107 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)