City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., Inc., 94-2120
| Decision Date | 03 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2120,94-2120 |
| Citation | 654 So.2d 283 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1063 The CITY OF COOPER CITY, Appellant, v. SUNSHINE WIRELESS COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael T. Burke of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke & George, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Gary S. Phillips and Steven B. Chaneles of Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corp., North Miami Beach, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of an action for breach of an annexation agreement and rescission. After the pleadings were closed and discovery had been taken, appellee moved for summary judgment. Appellee asserted in its motion that the contract was void ab initio, but did not raise the breach of contract issue.
Although the trial court held that the contract was not void or voidable, it found that appellant had breached the contract and ordered rescission. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment based on breach of contract and rescission because appellant did not have notice that these issues would be dealt with at the hearing. We agree and reverse.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) requires a party seeking summary judgment to "state with particularity the grounds upon which [the motion] is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued." This rule is designed to prevent "ambush" by allowing the nonmoving party to be prepared for the issues that will be argued at the summary judgment hearing. Swift Indep. Packing Co. v. Basic Food Int'l, Inc., 461 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Since appellant did not receive notice that the issues of breach of contract and the related entitlement to rescission would be addressed, it had no opportunity to prepare and to present evidence on the issues actually adjudicated by the trial court.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with leave for the trial court to reconsider the issues of breach of contract and rescission after appellant has been afforded proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...nonmoving party to be prepared for the issues that will be argued at the summary judgment hearing.” City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., 654 So.2d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). “It is reversible error to enter summary judgment on a ground not raised with particularity in the motion......
-
Rea v. Barton Protective Services, Inc., 94-2463
...claim for contribution, and therefore entry of summary judgment was also procedurally defective. See City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., Inc., 654 So.2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). REVERSED AND FARMER, J., concurs. JAMES R. WOLF, Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part ......
-
Ambrogio v. McGuire
...against him." (quoting Burns v. Consol. Am. Ins. Co., 359 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ) ); City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., 654 So.2d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ("This rule is designed to prevent ‘ambush’ by allowing the nonmoving party to be prepared for the issues t......
-
Design Neuroscience Ctrs. v. Fields
... ... Midgard Management, Inc. v. Park Centre Med-Suites, ... LLC, 114 ... 4th ... DCA 2019) (quoting City of Cooper City v. Sunshine ... Wireless ... Inv. Co. v. Nestor, 8 So.3d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA ... ...
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...Third District ruled that the trial court deprived the nonmoving party of due process).[43] City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., 654 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).[44] See HSBC Mortg. Corp. v. Mullan, 159 So. 3d 250, 252-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("[W]e conclude that the trial court c......