From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 11, 1984
443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-918.

January 11, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, James M. Reasbeck, J.

Neil G. Frank of Frank, Horowitz Flaster, P.A., Sunrise, for appellant.

Arnold Ilovitch of Ilovitch Manella, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.


In this appeal from a summary final judgment we reverse because only eight days transpired between the date of the Notice and the date of the hearing whereas the rules clearly require twenty days notice. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). See Greer v. Workman, 203 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). In any event ownership of the pipes and an agreement as to their continued use were genuine material issues of fact the existence of which would have precluded summary judgment even after adequate notice. See, e.g., Tompkins v. Rosenberg, 194 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) the court there noting that it is not sufficient for the moving party to come forward with a mere preponderance of the evidence to obtain summary disposition of the issues.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 11, 1984
443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:WAKEFIELD NURSERY, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT, v. DAVID HUNTER…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jan 11, 1984

Citations

443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Barnett Banks Trust v. Titusville

The trial court sustained the objection, stating that rule 1.510(c) contemplates that the notice be served…

Titusville Assoc. v. Barnett Banks Trust

PER CURIAM. We have for review Barnett Banks Trust Co., N.A. v. Titusville Associates, Ltd., 560 So.2d 1337…