COMMERCIAL BANK OF KENDALL, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALANA G. HEIMAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal, we are called upon to review the propriety of a summary judgment for a defendant in an action to recover over-drafts in a bank account.
We reverse on the state of the record, as it was premature for the trial court to award the defendant a summary judgment when the plaintiff, through no fault of its own, had not completed its discovery. Lovelace v. Sobrino, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 514; Campbell v. Hartford Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App.1975, 309 So. 2d 624.
This opinion is not to be construed as passing on the merits of any of the counts of the plaintiff’s complaint.
The matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings, which may include subsequent motions for summary judgment by either side after all discovery is completed.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Bldg. Educ. Corp. v. Ocean Bank, 982 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…duciary duty. Analysis I. Incomplete Discovery It is “premature for the trial court to award the defendant a summary judgment when the plaintiff, through no fault of its own, had not completed its discovery.” Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So. 2d 564, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). This rule is meant to allow a party enough time to conduct discovery and develop the facts in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. It does not, however, allow a party to defer pretrial discovery for years and then…
-
Gadsden Cnty. Times Inc. v. Mallory E. Horne, 382 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…etitioners at this juncture. We note also respondent’s contention (Response To Petition For Rehearing) concerning pending discovery efforts, which in itself would indicate less than a fully developed record. See Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), and Falls Poultry Distributing Co. v. Canner, 372 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979). We adhere to our opinion and decision, with the modification noted, denying certio-rari. McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Suntogs OF Miami, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 433 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e termination of discovery through no fault of Suntogs normally would entitle it to a reversal of the summary judgment on the fraud claims, Cullen v. Big Daddy’s Lounges, Inc., 364 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Campbell v. Hartford Fire & Casualty Co., 309 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we note that the record even as it stands now does not demonstrate as a matter of law that Suntogs could not prove these claims. The gravamen of the fr…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Campbell v. Hartford Fire & Cas. Co., 309 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)