HAROLD L. BACHE ET AL., GENERAL PARTNERS OF BACHE & CO., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDYTHE LEFCOE, APPELLEE
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.
In this appeal from a summary final decree, the court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in a stock delivery dispute, holding that factual disputes existed regarding whether stock was mistakenly delivered to the appellee, precluding summary judgment and requiring a full trial.
Summary judgment was improper because conflicting issues of fact created by the pleadings were not resolved by the record before the trial court. The case must proceed to trial before a fact-finder to resolve whether a mistake in delivery actually occurred.
“It is not the function of a trial judge to make findings of fact on a motion for summary judgment.”
Establishes the legal principle that judges cannot make factual determinations when ruling on summary judgment motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs alleged that certain stock was mistakenly delivered to defendant Lefcoe. Defendant denied the mistake and claimed the stock was delivered b…
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 Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal arises from a summary final decree involving certain stock, which the plaintiffs-appellants alleged in the complaint to have been mistakenly delivered to the appellee, which allegation was met with an answer denying there was any mistake and an allegation by the defendant-appellee that the stock was “delivered to her by plaintiffs in good faith and for value”.
The summary decree returned to the plaintiffs that portion of the stock still in the possession of the defendant, but failed to require the defendant to account for the proceeds received from that portion of the stock disposed of prior to notice of the alleged mistake. Both parties have assigned error in the entry of the decree.
In entering the summary final decree in this cause, the chancellor made numerous findings of fact. It is not the function of a trial judge to make findings of fact on a motion for summary judgment. See: Buck v. Hardy, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 428; Baker v. Cox, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 214; Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Company, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 302. When the issues created by the pleadings are in conflict [which conflict is supported by the record then before a trial judge], it is erroneous to enter a summary judgment or decree and the matter should proceed to a determination of the issues by the trier of the fact; either a jury, trial judge or chancellor. See: Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equipment Company, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 777; Sakowitz v. Marshall, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 105; Smith v. Musso, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 475. Therefore, there having been issues made by the pleadings in this cause as to whether or not there was, in fact, a mistake in delivery [which issue was not resolved by the record at the time the chancellor entered the summary final decree] same should have been denied and the said decree is therefore reversed and remanded for final hearing upon the evidence, with proofs to be submitted by the respective parties.
Because this cause is being returned to the chancellor, attention is called to the case of Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 879, which announces certain principles relative to damages which should be applicable to the instant situation.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton v. Emil Morton, 307 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…to extrinsic evidence bearing on intent, and particularly when there was some conflicting evidence as to the intention of the contracting parties, notwithstanding the case when tried would be before the same judge. See Bache v. Lefcoe, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 525, 526; Smith v. Baker, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 409, 412; Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 856, 858. Moreover, since the trial court does not appear to have regarded and treated the matter as one involving a…
-
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. S. Fla. Hotel & Motel Ass'n, 294 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ord before the trial court supports the conflict in factual matters, a summary judgment should not be granted. Bishop v. City of Clearwater, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 337; Benson v. Atwood, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 380; Bache v. Lefcoe, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 525; Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equipment Co., Fla.App. 1962, 138 So. 2d 777. Our review of the record in this case indicates the existence of factual issues which should be resolved by the trier of fact following a final hearing where both [*391] pa…
Authorities Cited
- Edsel Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc., 138 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Elva Buck and Lawrence Buck v. Hardy, 106 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Co., Inc., 141 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Klein v. Newburger, 151 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Smith v. Musso, 151 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Chandler's Rest., Inc. v. Voiler, 146 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Baker v. COX, 120 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)