Snyder v. Cheezem Development Corp.
| Citation | 373 So.2d 719 |
| Decision Date | 08 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1924,78-1924 |
| Parties | Donna D. SNYDER, Appellant, v. CHEEZEM DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Florida Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Martin Earl Rice, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Walter Logan and John T. Allen, Jr., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Appellant contends that entry of a summary judgment was improper because there existed a genuine issue of material fact. We agree and reverse.
Donna D. Snyder, plaintiff, sued defendant, Cheezem Development Corporation, for breach of a contract allegedly between Snyder and Cheezem whereby Cheezem agreed to sell Snyder a condominium unit. The contract named Cheezem as the "seller" on the first page, but was executed on the second page by American Design and Development Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cheezem.
Cheezem admitted the existence of the contract in its initial pleadings. Following a change of counsel, however, Cheezem moved to amend its pleadings. The motion was granted and Cheezem, by its amended answer, denied that there was a contract between it and Snyder, alleging instead that the contract was between Snyder and American. Cheezem then moved for summary judgment, attaching affidavits to its motion from its corporate officers. The affidavits indicated that there was no deposit recorded on Cheezem's books for the transaction, and that American was an independent entity, even though wholly owned by Cheezem, and had executed the contract on its own behalf and not as an agent of Cheezem. Snyder did not file counteraffidavits. The trial court granted final summary judgment for Cheezem.
A party to a civil suit is entitled to summary judgment only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So.2d 601 (Fla.1966); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). If the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper. Mejiah v. Rodriguez, 342 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); See Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lin v. Demings
...(quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ); accord Koresko v. Coe , 683 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp. , 373 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) ). In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court and the appellate court are not permitted to weigh ......
-
Dennis v. Kline
...summary judgment is improper.’ ” Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co., 949 So.2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). Section 736.04113, Florida Statutes (2011), provides the legal framework for Harriet's action. Section 736.04113(1......
-
Swindal v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co.
...that Landis does not authorize a trial judge to make this finding prior to trial if a question of fact exists. Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We conclude that this standard insurance exclusion, which must be construed in favor of coverage, does not excl......
-
Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co.
...The moving party carries the heavy burden of showing conclusively that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). "If the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if......
-
Adoption By the Numbers: Two Years Later, How Should the Florida Courts Navigate the "Not-So-New" Florida Summary Judgment Rule?
...LLC, 301 So. 3d 425, 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966)). (4) Snyder v. Cheezam Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citations (5) FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.510 (2021). (6) Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 192. (7) Id.......