MARIA LIMA
v.
CHRISTOPHER R. GARGANO
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.
Maria Lima appeals a summary judgment entered against her. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal vacated and remanded the judgment because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) by not stating reasons for granting the summary judgment motion on the record.
A trial court's order granting a summary judgment motion must state the reasons for the grant on the record to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a). A mere pronouncement that the motion has been granted, without reasons, fails to satisfy this mandatory requirement.
[1] A trial court's order granting a motion for summary judgment must state the reasons for the grant on the record; a bare pronouncement without stated reasons violates Flor…
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“The court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.”
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) requirement that trial courts must articulate reasons for summary judgment orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted a motion for summary judgment against Maria Lima and entered a final judgment in favor of Christopher R. Gargano. The order gr…
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 De Novo Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed December 4, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1915 Lower Tribunal No. 16-5582
________________
Maria Lima,
Appellant,
vs.
Christopher R. Gargano, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Manuel Guzman, Judge. Maria Lima, in proper person. Cooney Trybus Law, and Benjamin A. Kashi (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees. Before, FERNANDEZ, SCALES and BOKOR JJ. PER CURIAM. Maria Lima appeals a summary final judgment entered against her. We review such order de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). As this court explained, and as Lima noted in her motion for rehearing, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) requires that “[t]he court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.” The order on appeal contains only “[a] mere pronouncement the court has granted” such motion, which “fails to comply with the rule as it does not contain reasons for granting or denying the motion.” Jones v. Ervolino, 339 So. 3d 473, 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). While we take no position on the merits of the motion for summary judgment, “[t]he wording of the new rule makes clear that the court’s obligation” to state the reasons for granting (or denying) a summary judgment motion “is mandatory.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 77 (Fla. 2021). We therefore vacate the summary final judgment and reverse and remand for entry of an order that complies with the rule.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Siegler v. Empire Dawn, LLC, 321 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
- Romero v. Midland Funding LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)