YURGAL PASCAL
v.
BROWARD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Broward Water Consultants because a material factual dispute existed regarding whether Pascal validly exercised his contractual right to cancel the water filtration system purchase within three days of sale.
Summary judgment was improper where the record established a material factual dispute regarding whether the defendant exercised his contractual right to cancel the contract within three days of sale.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for rehearing when the moving party presents evidence establishing a material factual dispute that precludes summa…
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“Because the record shows that there remains a dispute of material fact as to Broward Water's entitlement to judgment, we reverse both orders.”
Opening statement of the court's rationale for reversal.
Broward Water Consultants sued Pascal for non-payment of a home water filtration system. Pascal admitted contracting for and receiving the system but …
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Yurgal Pascal appeals the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Broward Water Consultants, Inc., and denying his motion to reconsider same. Because the record shows that there remains a dispute of material fact as to Broward Water’s entitlement to judgment, we reverse both orders.
Broward Water brought this breach of contract claim against Mr. Pascal after he failed to pay for a home water filtration system. Broward Water moved for summary judgment submitting a contract for sale and an affidavit from its corporate representative stating that Mr. Pascal did not pay for the system. In his submission entitled “Affidavit of Claim,” Mr. Pascal, who appeared pro se at the trial court and in these appellate proceedings, claimed that while he had originally contracted to purchase the system, and it was delivered, he exercised his right to cancel the contract within three days of sale and Broward Water retrieved the system from his home. This right to cancel exists on the face of the contract and Mr. Pascal submitted text messages showing his cancellation within three days of the contract date.
On three occasions, the trial court attempted to hold a hearing on Broward Water’s motion for summary judgment. On all three occasions, Mr. Pascal filed a last-minute motion for continuance. At the time scheduled for 2 the third hearing, and when Mr. Pascal did not appear, the trial court denied the motion to continue and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Broward Water.
Mr. Pascal moved for rehearing within ten days of the order granting summary judgment. In his motion, Mr. Pascal again admits that he contracted for the sale of the system, however, he exercised his right to cancellation. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing. Because the order on summary judgment was issued before the change in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, we are compelled to apply our holding in AC Holdings 2006, Inc. v. McCarty, 985 So. 2d 1123, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), that in circumstances in which a clear issue precluding summary judgment is brought on rehearing, the trial court abuses its discretion in failing to order rehearing. See also McGowan v. Miami–Dade County, 724 So. 2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (reversing summary judgment where the record, including the affidavits submitted on rehearing, established the existence of a material factual issue). In his motion for rehearing, Mr. Pascal references evidence submitted by affidavit prior to the summary judgment hearing that he exercised his right to cancel, which was presented on the face of the contract for sale. This adequately established a fact issue that precluded summary judgment. 3 Under our previous precedent, the trial court’s failure to order rehearing in this instance was an abuse of discretion. We therefore reverse both orders on appeal, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed.
4
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1966)…w York, 346 U. S. 156, 178, a discharged jury in an effort to establish possible grounds for a new trial. Our courts have always been alert to protect the sanctity of the jury process. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264; see Castaldi v. United States, 251 F. Supp. 681. But in allowing Parker to overturn his conviction on the basis of what are no more than inconsequential incidents in an otherwise constitutionally flawless proceeding, the Court encourages others to follow his example in pursuing the jury and may b…
Authorities Cited
- AC Holdings 2006, Inc. v. McCARTY, 985 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- McGOWAN v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 724 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)