VELMA ANNE RUTH
v.
WARREN LUBOW, 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 affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of Warren Lubow against Velma Anne Ruth. The court held that once the moving party meets its burden on summary judgment, the nonmoving party must come forward with evidentiary material to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact, and failure to do so results in proper entry of summary judgment.
The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that once the moving party meets its burden of showing no genuine dispute as to any material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the nonmoving party must come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating a genuine issue of fact exists. A trial court has discretion to refuse to consider counter-affidavits presented for the first time on a motion for rehearing as being too late.
[1] A trial court has discretion to refuse to consider counter-affidavits presented for the first time in a motion for rehearing of summary judgment as being too late.
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“once moving party meets its burden of showing no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, 'it is incumbent upon the nonmoving party to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact exists . . . .'”
Establishes the core burden-shifting framework in summary judgment and the nonmoving party's obligation to respond with evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a summary judgment dispute between Velma Anne Ruth and Warren Lubow in Miami-Dade County Court. The nonmoving party (Ruth) failed to…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 13, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0440 Lower Tribunal No. 19-8406 CC
________________
Velma Anne Ruth,
Appellant,
vs.
Warren Lubow, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge. Marlene A. Watson, P.A., and Marlene Watson (Kissimmee), for appellant. Warren Lubow, in proper person. Before EMAS, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Brownlee v. 22nd Ave. Apts., LLC, 389 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (reiterating that once moving party meets its burden of showing no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “it is incumbent upon the nonmoving party to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact exists . . . .”) (citation omitted); Pangilinan v. Broward Cty., 914 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(holding no error in entering summary judgment in favor of movant where nonmovant submitted no counterevidence until she filed her motion for rehearing) (citing Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)); see also Umana v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“A trial court has the discretion to refuse to consider a counter-affidavit presented for the first time on a motion for rehearing of a summary judgment as being too late.”) (quoting Knowles v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 994 So. 2d 1218, 1219-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruth v. Lubow, 389 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Burley v. The Vill. S., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
Lopez v. Kendall Healthcare Grp., Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…before it was removed. [*5] judgment was entered in favor of the Hospital and Marcovich, and these consolidated appeals followed. We review de novo the trial court's ruling on the motions for summary judgment. See Brownlee v. 22nd Ave. Apts., LLC, 389 So. 3d 695, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Lopez contends that the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because whether the conduct was outrageous presents a question…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Pangilinan v. Broward Cnty., 914 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Knowles v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 994 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Smith v. Lydie Ladouceur Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Ruth v. Lubow, 389 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)