PAUL E. HARDCASTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA LANE MOBLEY, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARK EDGINGTON HARDCASTLE, DECEASED, 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 the trial court properly entered summary judgment because the appellant failed to present admissible evidence to support his claim, and the affidavit filed in opposition was untimely and insufficient.
The appellant sued for specific performance of an oral agreement to execute reciprocal wills, alleging he and the decedent had such an agreement. The …
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 Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of an adverse summary decree of dismissal entered by the chancellor upon the finding by the court “ * * * that the Plaintiff cannot establish a Cause of Action enforceable in a Court of Equity, and is unable in any event to go forward with his proof of his alleged Cause of Action. * *
The appellant filed a complaint for specific performance of a contract and to impress a trust upon the assets of the estate of a decedent, contending that he and the deceased, Mark Edgington Hardcastle, were twin brothers and that they had entered into an oral agreement to execute reciprocal wills making each other beneficiary of their respective wills; that at the time of the demise of the decedent his last will and testament failed to carry forward the provisions of the oral reciprocal agreement. Issue was joined by an answer which required the plaintiff to sustain the material allegations of his complaint. Certain interrogatories were addressed to the appellant and, in response thereto, he candidly admitted that “no other person was personally present and overheard the discussion or conversation resulting in such agreement”. Thereafter, a motion for summary final decree was filed, asserting that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that it affirmatively appeared that the plaintiff was unable to proceed, his lips being sealed by § 90.05 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., known as the “dead man’s statute”. The cause then came on for hearing, at which hearing the appellant [through his counsel] attempted to submit an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary final decree which in substance stated that the appellant had one or more witnesses [not named] who could testify that the deceased had admitted [during his lifetime] the existence of the oral contract sued upon. The chancellor rejected this affidavit upon the premise that it was not timely filed.
The appellant filed 4 points, each of which was a violation of the rule relative to clarity and conciseness in the stating of points on appeal. 3.7, subd. f, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.; State v. City of Hialeah, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 368; Serotkin v. Flavin, Fla.App. *7171959, 111 So.2d 483. However, we have examined the points and find that the appellant relies on the following as grounds for reversal of the summary decree of dismissal filed in this cause: (1) That the prohibition of § 90.05 Fla.Stat, F.S.A., known as the “dead man’s statute”, can only be raised at the time of trial; (2) that it could not be said that there was no issue as to a material fact; (3) that the appellant was entitled to an inference that he had other evidence which could be presented; and (4) that the affidavit filed at the time of hearing should not have been rejected by the chancellor as being untimely filed.
None of the errors urged by the appellant are found to be meritorious: (1) Evidence which is subject to objection at the time of trial is subject to being noted as unavailable at the time of hearing on summary decree. Riviera Printing Company v. Hessler’s, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 778; Pollock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 109. (2) It is not sufficient in defense of a motion for summary judgment to rely on the paper issues created by the pleadings, but it is incumbent upon the party moved against to submit evidence to rebut the motion for summary judgment and affidavits in support thereof or the court will presume that he had gone as far as he could and a summary judgment could be properly entered. Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482; General Truck Sales v. American Fire and Casualty Co., Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 202; Jones v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 582. (3) Therefore, the party moved against by summary judgment or summary decree must come forward with facts contradicting those submitted by the movant and demonstrating a real issue between the parties. Herring v. Eiland, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 645; Pritchard v. Peppercorn and Peppercorn, Inc., Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 769. (4) And, lastly, both the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the cases interpreting these rules have made it mandatory that affidavits in opposition to motions for summary judgment must be filed prior to the day of hearing. 1.36(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.; Cleveland Trust Company v. Foster, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 112; Siciliano v. Hunerberg, Fla.App. 1961, 135 So.2d 750. However, even considering that the affidavit filed by the appellant was timely filed, it failed to contain any facts and would not have buttressed the position of the appellant as it [the affidavit] could not meet the test enunciated in the authorities cited in answer to the second and third points above referred to.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary decree of dismissal is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)…rove at trial that the defendant was negligent.” (Emphasis added.) By the petition for certiorari it is contended that the quoted holding collides directly with the decision of the Court of Appeal, Third District, in Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App., 143 So. 2d 715. In Hardcastle the losing party in a summary judgment contended that he “was entitled to an inference that he had other evidence which could be presented.” The Third District Court decided otherwise in holding that “the party moved against by summa…
-
Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…urden to Wright to come forward and show with proper proofs that a material question of fact existed as to whether Yurko brought the suit without probable cause. Noack v. B.L. Watters, Inc., 410 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Probable cause in the context of a civil suit is measured by a lesser standard than in a criminal suit. But obviously less in the way of grounds for belief will.be required to justify a reasonable man in bringing a civil rather…
-
Page v. Staley, 226 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…n opposition. Humphrys v. Jarrell, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So. 2d 404; Tarkoff v. Schmunk, Fla.App.1959, 117 So. 2d 442; Pollock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 109; Evans v. Borkowski, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 472; Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 715; Lake v. Konstantinu, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So. 2d 171; Producers Fertilzer Co. v. Holder, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 492. With the disqualification of plaintiff’s sworn complaint and testimony as to the slander, the trial court had before it the defen…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1956)
- Herring v. Wilber T. Eiland, 81 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1955)
- Pritchard v. Peppercorn & Peppercorn, Inc., 96 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1957)
- The Cleveland Tr. Co. v. Athene S. Foster and Jack Wentz, 93 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1957)
- Siciliano v. Hunerberg, 135 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Pollock v. Kelly, 125 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Gen. Truck Sales, Inc. v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 100 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- State v. City OF Hialeah, 109 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1959)
- Boyd L. Jones, Jr. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 109 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Riviera Printing Co. v. Hessler's, Inc., 109 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)