LILLIE MAE MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
KEYSTONE SECURITY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A property management company hired to secure a house during a disputed real estate transaction used force and threats to exclude the purchaser from the premises. The court reversed a summary judgment, finding material factual disputes about the agency relationship, the extent of force used, and the purchaser's rights to occupy the property.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary judgment, including questions about the nature of the agency relationship between Keystone and The Morgan Company, the extent of force and threats used, Mrs. Morris's right to reside on the premises, the extent of her interest therein, and whether the purchase contract had been declared void.
[1] A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the nature of the agency relationship between a security company and a property owner.
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate when there are disputed issues concerning the extent of force or threats used against an individual on a property.
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“At that point, an employee of Keystone inside the house came to the door and with a drawn pistol ordered Mrs. Morris and her daughter off the premises after informing them that they were trespassers.”
Establishes the key factual dispute about the extent and nature of force used by Keystone's employee against the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 6, 1973, Lillie Mae Morris entered a purchase agreement to buy a single-family residence from The Morgan Company with a 45-day closing deadlin…
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 Agency Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff seeks reversal of an adverse summary final judgment in this action for damages.
On June 6, 1973 plaintiff, Lillie Mae Morris, as purchaser, and The Morgan Company, as seller, entered into a deposit receipt agreement for the purchase of a single family residence. The agreement provided for a closing date within 45 days of the execution thereof. With the permission of The Morgan Company, Mrs. Morris and her daughter moved into the house prior to the closing. As a result of some disagreement between Mrs. Morris and The Morgan Company, the closing did not take place within the 45 days.
On October 12 Morgan had the electricity turned off and hired the defendant Keystone Security, Inc. to take possession of the property, change the locks and keep all persons off the premises. Upon returning to the house on the evening of October 13, 1973, Mrs. Morris and her daughter discovered the locks had been changed after unsuccessfully attempting to unlock the door. At that point, an employee of Keystone inside the house came to the door and with a drawn pistol ordered Mrs. Morris and her daughter off the premises after informing them that they were trespassers. Thereupon, Mrs. Morris obtained a circuit court order directing that possession of the premises be restored to her and the electricity be turned back on. Thereafter, Mrs. Morris filed the instant complaint for damages against Keystone Security. Keystone answered and after pretrial discovery filed a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted the motion based on its findings that (1) record title to the property was in The Morgan Company at the time of the complained of incident; (2) the electricity had been turned off at the bequest of Morgan and this fact was known to Mrs. Morris; (3) Morgan had hired Keystone to take possession of the property and to keep all persons off and out of the premises.
Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Mrs. Morris, we find genuine issues of material facts which warrant reversal. See 2 FlaJur. Appeals § 307 (1963) and cases cited therein. In particular issues exist as to the nature of the agency relationship between defendant Keystone Security and The Morgan Company; the extent of the alleged force and threats used on Mrs. Morris upon her return to the premises; the right of Mrs. Morris to reside on the premises and the extent of her interest, if any, therein. We also note that there was no showing that the purchase contract had been declared void by reason of default on the part of appellant, Mrs. Morris.
Reversed.