OSCEOLA COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS L. GOODMAN, 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.
Osceola County appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of Dennis Goodman in a declaratory judgment action concerning approval of a mobile home park development. The appellate court reversed because material factual issues existed regarding whether Goodman was estopped from asserting a nonconforming use and whether the county was responsible for thwarting his development.
Summary judgment was improperly entered because material factual issues existed that required development at trial. The court held that even uncontradicted evidence may be susceptible of conflicting inferences, precluding summary judgment.
[1] Summary judgment is improperly entered when material issues of fact remain unresolved.
[2] Even if evidence is uncontradicted, summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence permits conflicting inferences.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Summary judgment is only properly entered where there are no material issues of fact.”
Establishes the fundamental standard for summary judgment eligibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoodman applied to the Osceola County Planning Commission in May 1968 for approval to develop a mobile home park on a 17-acre tract he was considering…
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 Conflicting Inferences cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff-ap-pellee in a suit for declaratory judgment. We reverse because same was prematurely entered in violation of the criteria found in Rule 1.510, F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A.
Summary judgment is only properly entered where there are no material issues of fact. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40. Where the evidence is un-contradicted, the moving party is still not entitled to summary judgment if the evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences. Williams v. Davidson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 387; Beikirch v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 898; Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Edgerly, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 649; Baskin v. Griffith, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 467; Pollock v. Kelly, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 109; Smith v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 440; and Graff Enterprises v. Canal Ins. Co., Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 738. Even where counsel stipulate for the use of summary judgment procedure *211(or both move for it as here) the stipulation is not binding on the court where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co., Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 85.
Here plaintiff, on May 14, 1968, applied to the Osceola County Planning Commission for approval of his proposed plan to develop a mobile home park and travel trailer arena on a seventeen acre tract of land which he was then considering purchasing. He had not yet purchased the property. The hearing was held on July 25, 1968, at which time the commission refused to approve plaintiff’s plan. One of the reasons for the commission’s refusal to approve the mobile home development was that plaintiff’s land was within an area which was to be zoned for the highest residential use. Nevertheless, plaintiff completed the purchase of the property at issue on July 26, 1968, in accordance with a contract which he had previously entered into. In October 1968 the Osceola County Commission had enacted interim zoning regulations to become effective on December 1, 1968.
Based upon the foregoing, there is a question and an issue as to whether plaintiff was estopped from asserting a nonconforming use against the County. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Lauderdale Industrial Sites, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 47; Sharrow v. City of Dania, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 274.
Not in limitation, there is a further issue as to whether the county was responsible for thwarting the plaintiff in its development.
All in all, from a survey of the record, it is our opinion that summary judgment was inappropriate and that the issues deserved development at a regular trial.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…remanded with directions. . While it appears that both parties moved for summary judgment that fact does not bind the lower court to render same where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. See, Osceola County v. Goodman, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 210.…
-
Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ven if made, had no effect. Although counsel may stipulate for use of a summary judgment procedure, or both move for it, the stipulation is not binding on the court where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. Osceola County v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co., 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We do not interpret the above rule as authorizing the trial court to accept such a stipulation where the record reveals disputed issues of material facts. The par…
-
Hobby v. Scott, 298 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…al Fire Insurance Company. A genuine triable issue may nonetheless exist in certain circumstances (as here) even where the evidence is uncontradicted if such evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences. Osceola County v. Goodman, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 210; Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 85; Coquina Ridge Properties v. East West Company, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 279. See also 30 Fla.Jur., Summary Judgment, sec. 10. The issues involved herein ought to be more fully develope…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Otie Stills v. Weil-Maas, Inc., 121 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Beikirch v. City OF Jacksonville Beach, 159 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Norris F. Baskin and Ola G. Baskin v. Griffith, 127 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Sharrow v. City OF Dania, 83 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1955)
- Pollock v. Kelly, 125 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Williams v. Davidson, 179 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- City OF FT. Lauderdale v. Lauderdale Indus. Sites, Inc., 97 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Byrd v. State, 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Carpenter v. State, 213 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)