HARVEY GOODMAN AND REBECCA GOODMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE ANTHONY, 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 mortgage foreclosure appeal, the trial court granted summary judgment for the lender (Anthony) on the issue of whether construction was sufficiently complete to trigger the note's payment obligation. The appellate court reversed, holding that conflicting affidavits about construction completion created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because the moving party (Anthony) failed to overcome the inferences favoring the opposing party (the Goodmans) and therefore could not demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding construction completion.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of making a conclusive showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
[2] The movant for summary judgment must be able to overcome all reasonable inferences of fact which may be drawn against them in favor of the opposing party.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of making a conclusive showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact. The movant must be able to overcome all reasonable inferences of fact which may be drawn against him in favor of the opposing party.”
Establishes the applicable standard of review for summary judgment motions and the heavy burden on the moving party.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Anthony's land development company sold a nearly-complete apartment complex to Harvey and Rebecca Goodman, who executed a promissory note secur…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is brought by defendant-appellant to review the trial court’s entry of a summary judgment in a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage.
Appellee, George Anthony, was a principal in a land development company which obtained a parcel of land upon which a multi-unit apartment project was proposed. When the project was ninety per cent complete, negotiations began between the land development company and appellants, Harvey and Rebecca Goodman, for the sale of the entire apartment complex. Appellants executed a note in favor of appel-lee which was secured by a mortgage on the apartment complex. The note was due *757and payable upon the happening of either of two alternative sets of circumstances:
First:
a) The satisfaction of the construction loan, and
b) The placing of the permanent first mortgage.
Second:
a) Completion of improvements now under construction, and
b) Issuance of certificates of occupancy, and
c) Satisfaction of all present lenders’ present requirements concerning certificates of completion and waivers and releases of lien.
Neither party contends that the first alternative had occurred, but appellee deemed the note due and payable with the occurrence of certain events which he felt satisfied the second set of circumstances. Appellants, however, when confronted with appellee’s demand for payment of the note, refused to pay because they did not consider the second set of circumstances to be fully complied with because construction was not completed on all of the improvements.
A mortgage foreclosure was commenced by plaintiff-appellee Anthony and the trial court granted his motion for summary judgment predicated upon the record before it, which contained sharply conflicting affidavits from the parties dealing with the issue of completion of the construction.
A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of making a conclusive showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact. The movant must be able to overcome all reasonable inferences of fact which may be drawn against him in favor of the opposing party. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Brady v. Zimmerman, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 637; Hundley v. Magnum Marine Div. of Amer. Photo Eq. Co., Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 367; Sloane v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 451. In the case here under consideration this heavy burden has not been met because plaintiff-appellee, the moving party, cannot overcome the inferences favoring the party opposing the motion and, therefore, it cannot be held that no genuine issue of material fact exists.
For the reasons stated above, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. & Phillip Hurlock, 362 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…). And, of course, all facts and inferences are to be resolved against the party seeking a summary judgment and in favor of the party opposing it. Stringfellow v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 295 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Goodman v. Anthony, 269 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Lescrynski v. Middlebrook, 260 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Justice Sundberg, speaking for the majority in Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla.1977), recently commented upon the movant’s burden: A party movi…
-
Madorsky v. Marcelino Regalado, 667 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…idavits demonstrates that genuine issues of material fact remain to be resolved by the fact-finder and that these issues preclude entry of summary judgment. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510; Watson v. Hahn, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Goodman v. Anthony, 269 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Therefore, we reverse. Reversed and remanded.…
-
James v. Pneuma Constr. Corp., 190 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…rough summary judgment.”); Charles E. Burkett & Assocs., Inc. v. Vick, 546 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (finding that conflicting affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact precluding entry of summary judgment); Goodman v. Anthony, 269 So. 2d 756, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (finding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment “predicated upon the record before it, which contained sharply conflicting affidavits from the parties dealing with the issue of completion of the construction”); se…
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
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Brady v. Zimmerman, 246 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Sid Sloane v. Merrill Lynch, 221 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hundley v. Magnum Marine Div. OF Am. Photocopy Equip. Co., 235 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)