Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 89-2964,90-1565,90-95,s. 89-2964 |
| Citation | 575 So.2d 1338,16 Fla. L. Weekly 567 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 567 The ULTIMATE CORPORATION, etc., Appellants, v. CG DATA CORPORATION, etc., et al., Appellees. CG DATA CORPORATION, etc., et al., Appellants, v. The ULTIMATE CORPORATION, etc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald Eugene Mason, Miami, for The Ultimate Corp., etc., et al.
Mishan, Sloto, Hoffman & Greenberg and Julie Feigeles, Miami, Lavalle, Wochna, Raymond & Brown and Michael J. Lavery, Boca Raton, for CG Data Corp., etc., et al.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Based on the following analysis, we reverse the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of the fraud and conspiracy counts. We affirm the summary judgment appealed which held the defendants liable under a promissory note.
As to defendants' arguments contesting the entry of summary judgment, we find only two points raised merit discussion. First, the promissory note did not require documentary stamps be paid upon it before recovery could be had on the note since the note was brought to Florida solely for collection. See 1980 Op.Att'y Gen. Fla. 080-79 (Sept. 24, 1980) (). See also Rainey v. Department of Revenue, 354 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1248 (Fla.1978).
Second, we reject defendants' claim that the summary judgment is reversible because the motion seeking that judgment was served by mail twenty-one days before the hearing on the motion when the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require that there be twenty-five days' notice. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) and 1.090(e). The defendants waived any objection to the timeliness of the service by timely filing affidavits opposing the summary judgment motion. See Blatch v. Wesley, 238 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 240 So.2d 645 (Fla.1970); Bernard Marko & Assoc., Inc. v. Steele, 230 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). It is thus evident that the timeliness of notice was adequate and the rule served its purpose; accordingly, any error in this regard was harmless since the defendants can point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp.
...that the plaintiff has waived any procedural irregularity in the motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp., 575 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Leviton v. Philly Steak-Out, Inc., 533 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Samuels v. Magnum Realty Corp., 431 So.2d 241 (Fl......
-
Brewer v. Clerk of Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 98-38
...summary judgment hearing. See, e.g., Wong v. Crown Equip. Corp., 676 So.2d 981, 981-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp., 575 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Bartlett Constr., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So.2d 892, 893 (Fla. 3d DCA In particular, in the 33 pages......
-
Vivona v. Colony Point 5 Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 96-3671
...procedure. Thus, they waived any objection that they may have had with respect to the lack of notice. See Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp., 575 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). On the substantive issues, we hold that the impact rule precludes Mrs. Vivona's recovery of damages for emotion......
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...respond and, in their affidavits and memorandum, they did not raise any procedural objections, citing Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp., 575 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)); E & I, Inc. v. Excavators, Inc., 697 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding that the issue was waived where......