THE JOCKEY CLUB, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALF H. BLAKE, TAX ASSESSOR OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
The Jockey Club appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of the Dade County Tax Assessor regarding a back assessment of property. The court reversed, finding that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the non-moving defendant without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to present evidentiary facts in defense.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that while summary judgment may be granted to a non-moving party in certain circumstances, it was improper in this case because the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to defend against the defendant's oral motion by presenting relevant evidentiary facts.
[1] A trial court may grant summary judgment to a non-moving party, but must ensure the opposing party has had an opportunity to present evidentiary facts.
[2] A party moving for summary judgment on the pleadings is not necessarily entitled to a ruling on the sufficiency of the opposing party's answer alone.
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“While there are circumstances under which the court may grant a summary judgment to a non-moving party, it must always be held in mind that this procedure is contrary to the rules and that it is better practice to require a motion by the successful party.”
Establishes the general rule that summary judgment should be granted only to a moving party, though exceptions exist.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Jockey Club filed suit to declare invalid a back assessment of its property by the Dade County Tax Assessor. After the plaintiff filed a motion fo…
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 Evidentiary Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, The Jockey Club, Inc., appeals a summary final judgment for the appellee, Dade County Tax Assessor, which determined adversely to the appellant its suit to declare invalid the back assessment of its property by the defendant. The summary judgment was entered upon the ore tenus motion of the defendant. We reverse.
The appellant upon receiving a copy of defendants’ answer filed a motion for which we find no authority in the rules. The motion recited, “The plaintiff, Jockey Club, Inc., moves the court for the entry of a summary judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of law.” It is apparent from argument before this court that the appellant now regards this motion as one for judgment on the pleadings. Nevertheless, it was entitled “Motion for Summary Judgment” and the court appears to have regarded it as such in that it recited in its final judgment that the cause arose upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
After a hearing on plaintiff’s motion, the court denied the motion but granted defendants’ oral motion for a summary judgment in their favor. It is apparent that the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to defend against defendants’ motion by the presentation of evidentiary facts which may have been relevant to such a defense. While there are circumstances under which the court may grant a summary judgment to a non-moving party, it must always be held in mind that this procedure is contrary to the rules and that it is better practice to require a motion by the successful party. See Carpineta v. Shields, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 573; John K. Brennan Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 525.
We are mindful of the fact that where appellate courts can decide cases upon their merits rather than upon procedural points, they should do so in order to shorten litigation. However, under the procedural stance of this case in the trial court at the time of plaintiff’s motion, we are not sure that it was not deprived of substantive rights by the ruling of the court upon the ore tenus motion. It is apparent that plaintiff anticipated only a ruling on the sufficiency of the answer to raise a defense to the allegations of the complaint. Faced with the ruling of the court that the answer is sufficient, the plaintiff may wish to add factual matters which may be relevant to the right of the County to collect the tax assessed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Opler v. Wynne, 402 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…the non-moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Carpineta v. Shields, 70 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1954); King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 133 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. denied, 142 [*1312] So. 2d 93 (Fla.1962). See, Jockey Club, Inc. v. Blake, 297 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). . Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation v. Rievman, 370 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
-
Glatstein v. The City OF Miami, 399 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…gment may be entered for a non-moving party where the other party moves for a summary judgment and the record discloses the non-moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Carpineta v. Shields, 70 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1954); Jockey Club, Inc. v. Blake, 297 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 133 So. 2d 744 (Fla.3d DCA 1961). The better practice is to file cross-motions, Carpineta v. Shields, supra.…
-
Univ. OF Miami v. Sosa, 629 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…2d DCA1991); Jones v. Directors Guild of America, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although not unauthorized, it is not generally accepted practice to enter summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party. Jockey Club, Inc. v. Blake, 297 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA1974) (citing Carpineta v. Shields, 70 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1954)); John K. Brennan Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 164 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA1964). This is particularly true in a cause with a number of issues. We do note that the recor…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carpineta v. Shields, 70 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1954)
- John K. Brennan Co. v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co., 164 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)