BLAKELEY
v.
LIVORSI
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 appellate court reversed a summary judgment for a real estate agent, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the agent's knowledge of property defects and his duty to disclose them to the buyers. The court emphasized that summary judgment is improper if any material fact remains in dispute.
Yes, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the real estate agent's knowledge of material defects and his duty to disclose them, making summary judgment improper.
[1] Summary judgment is improper if the evidence raises the slightest doubt on any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, or if it will permit different reasonable inf…
[2] Summary judgment should only be granted where the facts are so crystalized that nothing remains but questions of law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute with regard to whether Mr. Agles had knowledge of material defects in the home at the time of the sale and breached his duty to disclose them to the Blakeleys, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Blakeleys purchased a home and later sued the seller's real estate agent, Jim Agles, alleging he failed to disclose material defects. The trial co…
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 Duty To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
PETER M. BLAKELEY and AMY ) BLAKELEY, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3782 ) 2D17-4165 MICHAEL T. LIVORSI, individually and ) as Trustee of the MICHAEL T. ) CONSOLIDATED LIVORSI AND NELDA J. LIVORSI ) REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED ) 05/24/99; MICHAEL LIVORSI, ) individually and as Trustee of the ) MICHAEL LIVORSI REVOCABLE ) LIVING TRUST DATED 04/22/03; ) JIM AGLES; and REALTY TEAM OF ) LEE COUNTY, INC., a Florida ) corporation D/B/A RE/MAX REALTY ) TEAM, ) ) Appellees. ) )
Opinion filed May 8, 2019.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Lee County; John E. Duryea, Jr., Judge.
P. Brandon Perkins of Rogers Towers, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellants.
Theodore L. Tripp, Jr., and Joel W. Hyatt of Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, Fort Myers, for Appellee Jim Agles.
No appearance for remaining Appellees.
KELLY, Judge.
Peter and Amy Blakeley challenge the final summary judgment entered in favor of Jim Agles, the real estate agent and property manager who represented the seller in a real estate transaction with the Blakeleys.1 Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). If the evidence raises the slightest doubt on any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, or if it will permit different reasonable inferences, summary judgment is improper. Grimes v. Lottes, 241 So. 3d 892, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Summary judgment should only be granted "where the facts are 'so crystalized' that nothing remains but questions of law."
Ventana Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Chancey Design P'ship, Inc., 203 So. 3d 175, 183 (Fla.
2d DCA 2016) (quoting McCabe v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 68 So. 3d 995, 997 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2011)). Because the facts of this case are not "so crystallized" such that nothing remains but questions of law, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
1Case number 2D17-4165 is an appeal from the final summary judgment granted as to count V of the Blakeleys' second-amended complaint and from the order denying the Blakeleys' motion for rehearing. Case number 2D17-3782 is a separately- filed appeal from the Blakeleys' Amended Motion to Vacate Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. We consolidate these appeals for purposes of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
LaROSE, C.J. and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- McCABE v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 68 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Ventana Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Chancey Design P'ship, Inc., 203 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Charles W. Grimes & Brenda Grimes v. Lottes, 241 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)