RAYMOND W. TOMPKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
MONTAGUE ROSENBERG 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.
Plaintiff Tompkins appealed a summary judgment order favoring defendant Rosenberg in an escrow dispute. The court reversed, holding that Rosenberg failed to meet his burden as the moving party to conclusively eliminate all material factual issues, particularly regarding his relationship with co-defendant Pritikin and involvement in the transaction.
The court held that Rosenberg failed to meet the burden required of a party moving for summary judgment. Summary judgment must conclusively show that no material issues remain for trial, a burden greater than the plaintiff's trial burden of preponderance of evidence. Genuine triable issues of fact existed regarding Rosenberg's relationship with Pritikin and involvement in the transaction, requiring submission to a jury.
“The burden of a party moving for summary judgment is greater, not less, than that of the plaintiff at the trial. The plaintiff, at trial, may prevail on the basis of a mere preponderance of the evidence. However, the party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively that no material issues remain for trial.”
Establishes the legal standard that a movant for summary judgment bears a heightened burden compared to a trial plaintiff, requiring conclusive elimination of all material factual disputes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff delivered funds to defendants Pritikin and Rosenberg as partners to hold in escrow according to specified terms. Plaintiff sought return of …
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 Breach Of Escrow Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff has appealed from an order granting summary final judgment in favor of the defendant, Montague Rosenberg.
Plaintiff filed his complaint against the defendants, Pritikin and Rosenberg, to recover a sum of money allegedly delivered to the defendants, as partners, to be held in escrow according to certain terms and conditions. The plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to return of the funds in accordance with the escrow agreement, and that defendants refused to comply. Defendant Rosenberg moved for summary judgment on the basis of his general affidavit asserting that he had no control over the funds involved in the suit, had nothing to do with the transaction, and that he and defendant Pritikin were not partners. An attorney for plaintiff filed an affidavit to the effect that he had mailed to defendants a check payable to both defendants, accompanied by an escrow letter addressed to both defendants, and that he had received a reply on the letterhead of the defendants.
At the time plaintiff deposed defendant Pritikin, said defendant refused to answer questions concerning how he had disposed of the money, including a question as to whether he had given any of it to defendant Rosenberg. Upon plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, the trial judge declined to compel answers to these questions from defendant Pritikin at that state of the proceedings.
Appellant contends that the court erred in granting defendant Rosenberg’s motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of fact exist as to defendant Rosenberg’s professional relationship with defendant Pritikin, as to his involvement with defendant Pritikin in the transaction with plaintiff, and as to his responsibility, if any, to plaintiff. Appellee contends that he is entitled to a summary judgment because plaintiff did not file an affidavit controverting Rosenberg’s affidavit.
*690The burden of a party moving for summary judgment is greater, not less, than that of the plaintiff at the trial. The plaintiff, at trial, may prevail on the basis of a mere preponderance of the evidence. However, the party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively that no material issues remain for trial. Visingardi v. Tirone, Supreme Court of Florida, Opinion filed November 23, 1966, 193 So.2d 601.
It is our opinion that defendant Rosenberg did not meet such burden and that there are genuine triable issues of fact which should be submitted to a jury. Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schoenrock v. Alvina N. Schoenrock, 202 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
-
Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…DCA 1967). In any event ownership of the pipes and an agreement as to their continued use were genuine material issues of fact the existence of which would have precluded summary judgment even after adequate notice. See, e.g., Tompkins v. Rosenberg, 194 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) the court there noting that it is not sufficient for the moving party to come forward with a mere preponderance of the evidence to obtain summary disposition of the issues. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur…
-
Laichak v. Bacon, 223 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…judgment on the issue of liability. We1 find error and reverse. [*753] It is our view that the plaintiffs did not carry their burden of showing conclusively that there were no material issues of fact to be tried. Tompkins v. Rosenberg, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 688. It appears to us, from our review of the record, that there are genuine issues of fact such as: (1) whether the power lawn mower blade was more or less than twenty-four inches long. If it were less than twenty-four inches long then there would be n…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)