PRODUCERS FERTILIZER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS C. HOLDER, JR., AND MARTHA HOLDER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
Producers Fertilizer Company appeals a summary judgment dismissing its suit against the Holders for payment for fertilizer allegedly sold and delivered. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Holders' affidavit testimony creating a genuine issue as to whether the Holders were the actual purchasers (despite invoices naming another company) was legally sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because the affidavit testimony of Producers' Vice-President created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Holders were the actual purchasers. Parol evidence is admissible to identify the real parties in interest in a transaction, and such evidence would have been admissible at trial, making the affidavit legally sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
“A motion for summary judgment must be denied if evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, demonstrates that there exists a genuine issue as to any material fact.”
Establishes the governing standard for summary judgment that requires denial if material factual disputes exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProducers Fertilizer alleged that the Holders owed $3,739.50 for fertilizer sold and delivered between January 3, 1964, and April 1, 1964. Invoices at…
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 Parol Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals an adverse summary final judgment entered in its suit against appellees for goods allegedly sold and delivered.
By its second amended complaint appellant alleged that appellees owed it $3739.50 for fertilizer sold and delivered by appellant to appellees between January 3, 1964, and April 1, 1964. Upon motion by appel-lees the trial court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, on the ground that it violated Rule 1.10 (now Rule 1.130, 30 F. S.A.) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in that no invoices representing the alleged sales were attached to it. Appellant then filed its third amended complaint, to which were attached invoices purporting to represent the alleged sale but designating Gulf Coast Sod Company, Inc. as the purchaser.
Before answering, appellees moved for summary judgment, on the sole ground that the record disclosed no genuine issue of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. They filed nothing in support of their motion. In opposition to such motion appellant filed the affidavit of its Vice-President, which recited that the subject fertilizer was sold and delivered to appellees individually, that the invoices referred to Gulf Coast Sod Company as a matter of convenience, and that appellees were the actual purchasers. The affidavit further stated that appellees had previously admitted their individual liability for the purchase price, had executed promissory notes therefor, and had partially satisfied the indebtedness so as to reduce it to $3739.50. A copy of one of the alleged promissory notes was attached to the affidavit.
The trial court granted appellees’ motion and entered the judgment here appealed. Appellant assigns as error the entry of such judgment and the dismissal of its second amended complaint.
A motion for summary judgment must be denied if evidence, by affidavit or *494otherwise, demonstrates that there exists a genuine issue as to any material fact. Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 780, 782. Obviously the identity of the actual purchaser of the fertilizer was a material fact, and the discrepancy between the invoices and the affidavit of appellant’s Vice-President created a genuine issue as to such material fact. Accordingly, entry of summary judgment herein was proper only if the aforesaid affidavit was for some reason legally insufficient.
Statements in an affidavit can be considered in connection with a motion for summary judgment only if they would be admissible in evidence at trial. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40, 45; Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 715, 717; Evans v. Borkowski, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 472, 475, cert. den. mem., Fla.1962, 146 So.2d 378; Pollock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 109, 112; Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.36(e) (1966) (now Rule 1.510, 31 F.S.A.). Had the case at bar gone to trial, evidence offered by appellant to the ef fect that appellees were the actual purchasers would have been admissible, as parol evidence is admissible to identify the real parties in interest in a transaction. See Love v. Brown Dev. Co. of Mich., 1930, 100 Fla. 1373, 1379, 131 So. 144, 146; Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 333, 334. The affidavit filed by appellant, therefore, was legally sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and, thus, to defeat appellees’ motion for summary judgment.
The summary final judgment appealed here is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. Appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in dismissing its second amended complaint is thereby rendered moot.
Reversed and remanded.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Landis v. Mears, 329 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…een recognized in determining the relationship of an undisclosed principal with his agent. See, 1 Fla.Jur., Agency, § 90; Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.2d 1960, 122 So. 2d 333. And more recently, in Producers Fertilizer Co. v. Holder, Fla.App.2d 1968, 208 So. 2d 492, this court indicated that parol evidence is admissible to determine the real parties in interest in a transaction. In Holder, there was a conflict between the seller’s affidavit which stated he sold and delivered fertilizer to a purchaser individua…
-
Page v. Staley, 226 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…llock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 109; Evans v. Borkowski, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 472; Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 715; Lake v. Konstantinu, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So. 2d 171; Producers Fertilzer Co. v. Holder, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 492. With the disqualification of plaintiff’s sworn complaint and testimony as to the slander, the trial court had before it the defendant’s evidence, he being the principal actor, that he was not guilty, and no evidence that he was. Hence, the decisio…
-
Am. Baseball CAP, Inc. v. Duzinski, 308 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…hearsay should not be utilized. (See Viking Superior Corporation v. W. T. Grant Company, Fla.App.1st 1968, 212 So. 2d 331; Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, Sup.Ct.Fla.1965, 176 So. 2d 903; Producers Fertilizer Company v. Holder, Fla.App.2nd 1968, 208 So. 2d 492; Page v. Staley, Fla.App.4th 1969, 226 So. 2d 129 and Lake v. Konstantinu, Fla.App.2nd 1966, 189 So. 2d 171) Our examination of the record before us reveals that there was no competent evidence before the trial judge that appellant was doing busine…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Love v. Brown Dev. Co. of Mich., 100 Fla. 1373 (Fla. 1930)
- Evans v. Borkowski, 139 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Pollock v. Kelly, 125 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Willis, 146 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1962)
- Murphy v. Pinellas Cnty. Anti-Mosquito Dist., 146 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1962)