MILTON E. STEINHARDT AND ESTER STEINHARDT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BETTY D. LEHMAN 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.
Milton Steinhardt appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment in a family business dispute where his siblings seek an accounting and imposition of a constructive or resulting trust over real estate and business assets he managed. The court affirmed the denial, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
The trial court properly denied summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the accounting claims and alleged agreements. The moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of material factual disputes, and the record established such disputes remained.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
[2] The opposing party is not obligated to demonstrate that issues remain to be tried until the moving party has successfully met its burden of proof on a motion for summary…
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“The burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact is upon the party moving for summary judgment and until it is determined that the moving party has successfully met this burden, the opposing party is under no obligation to show that issues do remain to be tried.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment and allocates burden of proof to 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 intelligenceIn 1935, Morris Steinhardt sold his oil business and entrusted the proceeds to his son Milton for real estate investment. After Morris's death, the si…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Milton Steinhardt, appeals an order denying his motion for summary judgment in this action by his brother, sister and sister-in-law seeking an accounting and imposition of a constructive or resulting trust upon a family business entrusted to defendant’s management.
In 1935 Morris Steinhardt sold his oil business and entrusted the funds derived from the sale to his on Milton to invest in real estate. Following their father’s death, plaintiffs agreed that Milton should continue to manage the family real estate business and render an accounting to them from time to time. Milton amassed a large fortune and on numerous occasions over the years plaintiffs made demands for an accounting, but to no avail. Finally brother Arthur, sister Betty and brother Julius’ widow and children filed the instant action for an accounting to impress a constructive or resulting trust on the family business. Betty also alleged in the complaint that Milton had failed to abide by an agreement whereby both she and her husband were to receive 21/2% of the income derived from a 99-year ground lease at a certain condominium project developed by Milton, and title to one of the units in the complex. Milton’s motion to dismiss the action was denied whereupon he answered asserting the following affirmative defenses: statute of limitations, statute of frauds, lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, estoppel, laches, failure to state a cause of action, failure to join indispensable parties, failure to comply with the time requirements for asserting a claim against an estate, equitable estoppel and failure to set forth sufficient records for an accounting. Following extensive pre-trial discovery, Milton moved for summary judgment. The trial judge denied the motion and Milton appeals. We affirm.
The burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact is upon the party moving for summary judgment and until it is determined that the moving party has successfully met this burden, the opposing party is under no obligation to show that issues do remain to be tried. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). A review of the record reflects the existence of genuine issues of material fact and the trial judge was eminently correct in denying the motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.
NATHAN, J., has participated in the decision but not in oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Home Ins. Co. & N. River Ins. Co. as subrogees for Athlone Indus., Inc. v. C & G Sporting Goods, Inc., 453 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…summary judgment, and, until it is determined that the moving party has successfully met this burden, the opposing party is under no obligation to show that issues remain to be tried. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Steinhardt v. Lehman, 338 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). Most of the controversy over the instant summary judgment proceedings has centered around C & G’s attacks upon the legal sufficiency of the various evidentiary documents which were of record in the trial court and which plainti…
-
Steinhardt v. Steinhardt, 445 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…atute of limitations, statute of frauds, res judicata and collateral estoppel. A defense motion for summary judgment was denied below and affirmed by this court on an interlocutory appeal taken under Fla.R.App.P. 4.2(a) (1962). Steinhardt v. Lehman, 338 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1976). Upon remand, following certain amendments to the complaint and an additional answer thereto, the case finally proceeded to non-jury trial below. The trial court received eighteen days of testimony and argument in a series of tru…1 / 2
-
Star Lakes Ests. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dory Auerbach and Hortense Auerbach, 656 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ry judgment, failed to meet its initial burden of conclusively establishing the non-existence of disputed factual issues regarding the mailing of the notice. See Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43 — 44; Home Ins. Co., 453 So. 2d at 122-23; Steinhardt v. Lehman, 338 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the Association’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Moreover, the Auerbachs’ denial of receipt of the initial notice regarding the special assessment must not be viewed in isolation, but must be c…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)