UZZELL
v.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC
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.
Summary disposition was improper because Velocity did not establish the existence of a valid loan agreement or prove that money was delivered to the defendant as a loan, leaving triable issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.
[1] Summary disposition under small claims rule 7.135 is improper when the movant fails to establish the existence of a valid contract, an essential element of a breach of co…
[2] A party seeking to establish a valid loan agreement must present evidence bearing the defendant's signature or otherwise prove the essential elements of offer and accepta…
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“No person or entity is bound by a contract absent the essential elements of offer and acceptance.”
Establishes that a valid contract requires essential elements including offer and acceptance, which Velocity failed to prove.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVelocity Investments filed a small claims action against Uzzell alleging breach of a loan agreement and seeking $7,798.24. Velocity moved for summary …
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 Breach Of Loan Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JAMES UZZELL,
Appellant,
v.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-1801
April 30, 2025
Appeal from the County Court for Pinellas County; John Carassas, Judge.
James Uzzell, pro se.
Robert J. Lindeman of Marcadis Singer P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
LABRIT, Judge.
James Uzzell challenges a summary disposition entered in favor of Velocity Investments, LLC. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.135. Because Velocity did not establish that there is no triable issue, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Velocity filed a small claims action against Mr. Uzzell alleging that Mr. Uzzell breached a loan agreement between him and Velocity's predecessor, and that Mr. Uzzell owed Velocity $7,798.24 under several theories. Velocity later moved for summary disposition pursuant to small claims rule 7.135, which provides: "At pretrial conference or at any
1 The agreement states that "BY ELECTRONICALLY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, YOU HAVE SIGNIFIED YOUR AGREEMENT TO [ITS] TERMS," but there are no electronic or other signatures present.
We review de novo an order granting summary disposition under small claims rule 7.135.2 Save A Lot Car Rental, Inc. v. Tri J. Co. Towing & Recovery, Inc., 325 So. 3d 285, 286–87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). This rule, much like Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, requires a trial court to find that there is no triable issue as a matter of law before entering judgment for the movant. Id. at 286. Our role on appeal is also similar—to "examine the record to determine if there is 'any genuine issue of material fact' " that precludes summary disposition for the movant. Id. at 287 (quoting Nard, Inc. v. DeVito Contracting & Supply, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)).
Mr. Uzzell argues, as he did below, that there are genuine factual issues because Velocity did not present anything with his signature on it or establish the existence of a contractual relationship. We agree. Velocity alleged that Mr. Uzzell breached a loan agreement, and the existence of a valid agreement was an element of its claim. See Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2006-4 v. Meyer, 265 So. 3d 715, 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). The loan agreement that Velocity presented, however, contains neither Mr. Uzzell's name nor his signature. Cf. Nowlin v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 193 So. 3d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("No person or entity is bound by a contract absent the essential elements of offer and acceptance."). And while there are ways to establish a valid agreement in the absence of a signed document, see CNJ Realty Assocs.,
2 We conduct our review within the confines of Mr. Uzzell's arguments. And as Velocity points out, several of Mr. Uzzell's appellate arguments are unpreserved for our review. See Pulte v. New Common Sch. Found., 334 So. 3d 677, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
Additionally, to the extent Velocity proceeded under a theory of money lent, Velocity had to show that money was delivered to Mr. Uzzell, that the money was intended as a loan, and that Mr. Uzzell did not repay it. See CFLB Mgmt., LLC v. Mabipa Overseas, S.A., 341 So. 3d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Velocity appeared to rely on the unsigned loan documents to satisfy these elements, but we agree with Mr. Uzzell that Velocity fell short of establishing what money was delivered to Mr. Uzzell as a loan. This is yet another triable, disputed issue that remains.
We recognize "that the small claims rules are to 'be construed to implement the simple, speedy, and inexpensive trial of actions at law in county courts.' " Davis v. Clark, 326 So. 3d 781, 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (quoting Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.010(a)). But small claims rule 7.135 still requires that there be "no triable issue" before a case can be summarily disposed of, and at this stage basic elements of Velocity's claims are unproven and disputed. We therefore reverse the summary final judgment for Velocity and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Saby v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 769 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Nowlin v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 193 So. 3d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2006-4 v. Meyer, 265 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
- Ruiz v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 212 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Save a LOT CAR Rental, Inc. v. TRI J. CO Towing & Recovery, Inc., 325 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
- Pulte v. THE NEW Common Sch. Found., 334 So. 3d 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- Shai Morali v. Mayan, 377 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- Caryn N. Davis v. Clark, 326 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)