ALICIA GUESS
v.
ABERDEEN GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
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.
Summary judgment was properly granted where the appellant failed to file a mandatory response to the motion for summary judgment and did not supply a hearing transcript on appeal.
[1] Failure to file a mandatory response to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c)(5) permits the trial court to exercise its disc…
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 intelligenceAlicia Guess appealed a summary judgment entered by the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County against Aberdeen Golf & C…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.510(E) cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Marni A. Bryson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CC- 003331-XXXX-SB.
Morgan L. Weinstein of Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert Rivas of Sachs Sax Caplan, PL, Boca Raton, for appellee. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131, 1134-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (affirming summary judgment where appellant neither responded to the motion for summary judgment nor supplied a hearing transcript on appeal, and recognizing that, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c)(5), the requirement of filing a response is mandatory and, if one is not filed, rule 1.510(e) “provides discretionary options for the trial court,” including “grant[ing] summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including the facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it”); Simmons v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 338 So. 3d 1057, 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (determining that transcripts of trial court statements meet the rule 1.510(a) requirement that the trial court state on the record the reasons for granting or denying summary judgment motion); Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. Ams., 248 So. 3d 1205, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (observing that although “a lack of a transcript, in and of itself, will not necessarily prohibit appellate review of the evidence underlying a summary judgment ruling, it could in some cases stymie the fullness of a
2
legal argument challenging that ruling on appeal if there is a question about whether the argument was preserved”). GROSS, CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
City of Miami v. Alvarez, 390 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ice. Instead, Alvarez relies on notice provided after he brought his action. However, “because section 768.28(6) is part of a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, ‘it must be strictly construed.’” Simmons v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 338 So. 3d 1057, 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting Levine, 442 So. 2d at 212)). Since the requirements of notice are “conditions precedent to maintaining an action” under § 768.28(6)(b), providing notice after initiating an action does not satisfy the statutory req…
-
Tucker v. LNV Corp. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co., 248 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Lloyd Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- Simmons v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 338 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)