MENDES
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
A trial court's erroneous treatment of a motion for summary disposition as a motion for summary judgment warrants reversal and remand.
[1] When a defendant concedes error in the trial court's procedural treatment of a motion, reversal and remand are appropriate without expressing an opinion regarding the ext…
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 intelligenceRuben Mendes appealed from a final judgment entered in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in a County Court action in Hillsborough Count…
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.
January 22, 2025 Appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County; J. Logan Murphy, Judge. Pierre A. Louis and Alibia N. White of Louis Law Group, PLLC, Miami, for Appellant. Maureen G. Pearcy of Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Ruben Mendes appeals from an order entering final judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Mendes contends that the trial court erroneously treated Citizens' motion for summary disposition as a motion for summary judgment. Citizens confesses error on that point. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings without expressing "any opinion as to the extent of the error." Pederson v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 145 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Gulf Power Co. v. Ill.-Fla. Land Co., 132 So. 109, 110 (Fla. 1931)). Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pitts, 249 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…trial court erred, but only for the purpose of fixing the rights of the parties inter sese. Evans v. Green, 142 Fla.335, 195 So. 413 (1940); Clark v. Caldwell, 95 Fla.754, 116 So. 632 (1928); Gulf Power Co. v. Ulinois-Florida Land Co., 100 Fla.1594, 132 So. 109 (1931). The last stated principle of law is universally adhered to in a civil case because the parties have the exclusive right to manage litigation affecting only their private rights and property. However, the resolution of the issues underlying…
-
The Wash. Loan & Tr. Co. v. Hutchinson, 107 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1932)…ear that the findings of the Chancellor are clearly wrong on the evidence, in cases where there is some evidence from which the Chancellor could have found as he did. Wilson v. Duncan, 92 Fla. 470, 112 Sou. Rep. 48; Heinisch v. Mills, 100 Fla. 1600, 132 Sou. Rep. 109. Prom a study of the record a majority of the Court have concluded that the Chancellor’s findings to- the effect that at the time of the delivery of the securities, the donor, Thomas B. Hutchinson, was mentally capable of making a gift and was not…
-
Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542 (Fla. 1931)…ndings are clearly shown to be erroneous.” Weaver Loughridge Lbr. Co. vs. Kirkland et ux. 99 Fla. 426, 131 Sou. 784; Carr vs. Lesley, 73 Fla. 233, 74 Sou. 207; Cobb vs. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 Sou. 869; Heinisch et ux. vs. Mills et al., 100 Fla. 967, 132 Sou. 109. The decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered. Affirmed. Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur. Whiteield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in ■the opinion and judgment.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pederson v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 145 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)