ELITEX PROGRAM, LLC
v.
PARTNERS AND FRIENDS GROUP, LLC
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 because appellants failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding their fraud claim, which must be based on statements concerning past or existing facts, not opinions or promises of future action.
[1] A fraud claim must be based on a statement concerning a past or existing fact and cannot be predicated on statements of opinion or promises of future action.
[2] A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including deposition…
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“An action for fraud generally may not be predicated on statements of opinion or promises of future action, but rather must be based on a statement concerning a past or existing fact.”
Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), cited in support of the fraud claim standard.
Elitex Program LLC and related parties appealed a summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in favor of Partners and Friends…
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 Admissible Evidence In Affidavits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(1)(A) (“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“An action for fraud generally may not be predicated on statements of opinion or promises of future action, but rather must be based on a statement concerning a past or existing fact.”); Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“[T]rial courts need not grant rehearing when the movant raises a new argument that could have, and should have, been raised prior to entry of summary judgment.”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flaherty v. Flaherty, 389 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (noting that “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment” (quotation omitted)); Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Fla…
-
ARI Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Crystal Cap. Fund Series, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…2021); Panglinan v. Broward Cnty., 914 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Best v. Educ. Affiliates, Inc., 82 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same); Chris Thompson, P.A. v. Geico Indemnity Co., 349 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). This is not to say that a trial court is prohibited from considering an issue raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing. But given our deferential standard of review of an order denying such a motion, and in light of ou…