WELL-BILT PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN D. LIECHTY ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Well-Bilt Products appealed a jury verdict loss, challenging the trial court's denial of its motions for summary judgment on its claim and the defendant's counterclaim, and its motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised discretion in denying summary judgment and that the jury verdict constituted good evidence of the merits.
The trial court did not err in denying the summary judgment motions. The trial court properly exercised discretion in denying summary judgment where genuine issues of material fact existed that warranted trial. The subsequent jury verdict constituted good evidence of the merits and demonstrated the propriety of allowing the case to proceed to trial.
“In granting a motion for a summary judgment, like in granting a motion for a directed verdict at trial, the trial court determines that there are no genuine issues of a material fact that ought to be tried and as a matter of law the motion is well founded; no discretion is involved. However, in denying a motion for a summary judgment, discretion may play a part.”
Establishes the key distinction between granting and denying summary judgment motions and the role of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWell-Bilt Products was the plaintiff in the lower court and proceeded to a jury trial on its claim against defendants John D. Liechty and others. The …
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 Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the plaintiff below and after jury trial resulting in an adverse verdict and judgment, the appellant-plaintiff appealed from the final judgment and assigns as error the court’s previous denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim; denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim; and, denial of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s amended counterclaim. We fail to find harmful error and affirm.
Summary judgments — discretion. The role of the court’s discretion in granting a motion for summary judgment is not the same as when the court denies a motion for a summary judgment. In granting a motion for a summary judgment, like in granting a motion for a directed verdict at trial, the trial court determines that there are no genuine issues of a material fact that ought to be tried and as a matter of law the motion is well founded; no discretion is involved. However, in denying a motion for a summary judgment, discretion may play a part. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd, p. 2165, Section 56.15(8) states:
“Discretion plays no real role in the grant of summary judgment: the grant of summary judgment must be proper under the above principles or the grant is subject to reversal. The trial court may, however, exercise a sound discretion In denying summary judgment where, although the movant may have technically shouldered his burden, the court is not reasonably certain that there is no triable issue of fact; where a portion of an action may be ripe for summary judgment but it is intertwined with another claim (s) that must be tried; and in certain other situations.”
When in due course a trial is had on the merits, its result is good evidence of the real merits of the rights of the plaintiff as against the defendant. If he wins he has a judgment and if, after a fair trial, he loses, it shows that he ought not to have a judgment, in the absence of prejudicial error affecting his substantive rights. The principles of aider by verdict as well as harmless error, Section 54.23, F.S.A., are applicable. The record before us fails to show a miscarriage of justice or any harmful or prejudicial error.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc., 593 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…rtheless, we are unable to reverse on this basis. After a favorable verdict for the plaintiff, a judgment is subject to reversal for defect in pleading only if the defendant has been prejudiced by the error. See Well-Bilt Products, Inc. v. Liechty, 167 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Although the appellants claim the lack of factual content in the fraud claim left them ill prepared to defend the claimed fraud, we disagree. Appellants took the deposition of Mr. Man-iaci early in the case and he identified his…
-
H & H Design Builders, Inc. v. Travelers' Indem. Co., 639 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…the plaintiff, a judgment should be subject to reversal for defect in pleading only if the defendant has been prejudiced by the error. Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc., 593 So. 2d 234, 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (citing Well-Bilt Products v. Liechty, 167 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), review denied, 601 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1992)). Here, the legal and factual basis for the claim of $4,683.00 was apparent from the face of the pleading and was proved. With respect to the second coverage period, how [*701] ever, Trav…
-
Abrams v. Gen. Ins. Co., Inc., 508 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…mmary judgment should have been granted. Moreover, it is highly doubtful that the denial of a motion for summary judgment which is followed by a contrary, adverse jury verdict is even subject to review on appeal. Well-Bilt Products, Inc. v. Liechty, 167 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). . While Goldwich was somewhat contradictory and uncertain, consideration of his testimony is governed by the rule that the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and by the concomitant principle…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence