DESTIN POINTE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
DESTIN PARCEL 160, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMTED ETC.
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.
Appellant challenged summary judgment orders on certain counts and final judgment entered after bench trial on remaining counts. The appellate court affirmed all judgments but encouraged trial courts to specify material facts in summary judgment orders.
The court affirmed the summary judgments and final judgment because the appellate record contained ample documentary and evidentiary support for the trial court's rulings. Although the trial court should have specified the material facts in its orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(d), the omission did not prevent appellate review.
[1] Although trial courts are required to specify material facts appearing without substantial controversy in summary judgment orders under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Appellate review would be greatly simplified and made more efficient, however, by the inclusion of the uncontroverted material facts in summary judgment orders where rule 1.510(d) applies.”
The court's recommendation to trial courts regarding proper specification of facts in summary judgment orders.
The appellant filed an amended complaint with multiple counts against appellees, who asserted corresponding counterclaims. Summary judgments were gran…
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 Genuine Dispute Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the orders granting summary judgment for the Appellees on certain counts of its amended complaint1 and the final judgment entered upon these orders and, in addition, the trial court’s declarations after bench trial on the remaining counts. Upon review of the voluminous appellate record and the arguments presented by the parties, we affirm both the grants of summary judgments and the final judgment. We write only to encourage trial courts to specify in summary judgment orders the material “facts that appear without substantial controversy” and those facts which remain “actually and in good faith controverted.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(d).
While the orders granting summary judgment for Appellees on counts I, III and V of the amended complaint conclude that there are no genuine disputes of material fact, the facts material to the requests for declaratory judgment on these counts were not specified in the orders or in the final judgment. However, the appellate record included ample documentary and other evidentiary support for the trial court’s rulings. Accordingly, our appellate review of the summary judgments was possible without more detailed orders. See Holiday Isle Improvement Ass’n, Inc. v. Destin Parcel 160, LLC, 254 So. 3d 1109, (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Forbes/Cohen Fla. Props., L.P., 223 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Appellate review would be greatly simplified and made more efficient, however, by the inclusion of the uncontroverted material facts in summary judgment orders where rule 1.510(d) applies.2 1 Appellees asserted multi-count counterclaims corresponding to the counts of the amended complaint, which were included in the trial court’s summary judgments and declarations on the respective counts.
AFFIRMED.
RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ David A. Theriaque and S. Brent Spain of Theriaque & Spain, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Daniel C. O’Rourke and Dana C. Matthews of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Destin, for Appellees.
(Fla. 2012) (quoting Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906-07 (Fla. 2002)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Swett v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla., 97 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2012)
- Holiday Isle Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Destin Parcel 160, LLC, 254 So. 3d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)