Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 91-2762

Decision Date02 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-2762,91-2762
Citation609 So.2d 147
Parties17 Fla. L. Week. D2688 Don T. KOZICH, Appellant, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF MIDWEST, a Florida corporation, and Stuart L. Stein, individually, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Don T. Kozich, Fort Lauderdale, pro se appellant.

Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary Wilder of Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., and Earleen H. Cote of Law Offices of Earleen H. Cote, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee-Stuart L. Stein.

DELL, Judge.

Appellant filed suit against his insurance company and appellee for damage to his car. The trial court, pursuant to a settlement agreement, dismissed appellant's complaint against his insurance company. On July 25, 1991, appellee, Stuart L. Stein, moved for summary judgment against appellant. On July 30, the trial court entered the following order:

This Court has received Defendant Stuart Stein's Motion for Summary Judgment dated July 25, 1991 and accordingly it is ordered as follows:

1. That Plaintiff shall respond in writing within 20 days from the date of this order. A copy thereof shall be furnished to opposing counsel and directly to the Court (Room 998).

2. Parties may submit photocopies of case authority relied upon in their motion or response. Since photocopies of cases will not be retained by the Court subsequent to ruling, the citations must be noted within the written motion or response.

3. After the expiration of 20 days from the date of this order or upon receipt of the response, whichever occurs first, the Court will rule on the Motion. Court will advise the parties in the event a hearing is required.

4. If the moving party has not submitted two sets of return stamped envelopes for all counsel with the Motion, they shall submit at this time one set of stamped envelopes.

DONE AND ORDERED....

(emphasis added). On August 16, appellant filed a response to appellee's summary judgment motion. On August 23, the trial court, without a hearing, entered a final order that granted appellee's motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellant's claim with prejudice. We reverse.

Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in pertinent part:

(c) Motion and Proceedings Thereon. The motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued and shall be served at least twenty days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits prior to the day of the hearing.

Rule 1.510(c) provides for a hearing and specifies the time periods for filing and responding to a motion for summary judgment based upon the date fixed for the hearing. The rule does not provide the trial court with discretion to decide whether "a hearing is required." Judge Vitale's form order does not comply with rule 1.510(c) and we disapprove of its use. An order granting summary judgment on liability determines a party's right to the relief requested and to deny either party a hearing must be construed as a denial of due process. See Berchtold v. Griffin, 592 So.2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • The Florida Bar v. Rapoport
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 20, 2003
    ...aware that rule 1.510(c) has been interpreted to require hearings on motions for summary judgments. See Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So.2d 147, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We deem it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether rule 1.510(c) mandates a hearing before summary judgme......
  • City of Riviera Beach v. Shillingburg
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 16, 1995
    ...such, we would be reluctant to reverse on this issue alone. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992); Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). However, landowners have not moved to strike the Department of Community Affairs brief or otherwise argue th......
  • Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2018
    ...court does not have discretion to decide whether to conduct a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So.2d 147, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("[ Rule 1.510(c) ] does not provide the trial court with discretion to decide whether ‘a hearing is require......
  • Richard v. Bank of Am., N.A.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2018
    ...does not provide the trial court with discretion to decide whether ‘a hearing is required.’ " Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest , 609 So.2d 147, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A trial court's failure to conduct a hearing prior to ruling on the motion for summary judgment constitutes a denial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT