MICHAEL KING
v.
STANISLAV ZASLAVSKIY
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.
A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance to permit amendment of technical defects in affidavits or declarations submitted in opposition to summary judgment when the documents are based on personal knowledge and sworn under penalty of perjury.
[1] A motion for continuance to correct technical defects in an affidavit or declaration should be granted.
[2] A trial court should provide an opportunity to cure technical defects in an affidavit or declaration before excluding it.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[T]he trial court's refusal to permit amendment of an affidavit's technical defects constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
Court citing United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Affiliated Healthcare Ctrs., Inc. to support the principle that technical defects in affidavits must be curable.
King opposed summary judgment by filing two declarations based on personal knowledge and sworn under penalty of perjury. The trial court excluded 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.
Eric J. Grabois, for appellee. Before LOGUE, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Michael King, appeals a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Stanislav Zaslavskiy. In the proceedings below, King opposed summary judgment through the filing of two declarations that he contended demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact. Although authorized under Rule 56 (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing federal summary judgment proceedings, it is far from clear that such declarations are similarly admissible in Florida summary judgment proceedings. We decline to decide that issue here. The documents submitted in opposition to summary judgment were based upon personal knowledge and sworn under penalty of perjury, and the motion to exclude them was not made until the hearing on summary judgment. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for a continuance to correct the technical differences between a declaration and an affidavit should have been granted. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Affiliated Healthcare Ctrs., Inc., 43 So. 3d 127, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[T]he trial court’s refusal to permit amendment of an affidavit’s technical defects constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”); United Auto Ins. Co. v. Merkle, 32 So. 3d 159, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“In this case, the circuit court failed to apply the correct law . . . when it affirmed the summary judgment on grounds that the Glatzer affidavit was technically deficient, without providing United the opportunity to cure the defects.”) (citing Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 216 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1968)). Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Valerie v. Stephens, 216 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1968)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Affiliated Healthcare Ctrs., Inc., 43 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peter F. Merkle, M.D., P.A., 32 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)