Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 16, 2016 by admin

Civil procedure — Torts — Trial court erred in entering final summary judgment in favor of plaintiff where plaintiff failed to negate affirmative defenses or otherwise show how affirmative defenses were legally insufficient

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2740d
Top of Form

Civil
procedure — Torts — Trial court erred in entering final summary judgment in
favor of plaintiff where plaintiff failed to negate affirmative defenses or
otherwise show how affirmative defenses were legally insufficient and, as to
one cause of action to which no answer was filed, failed to conclusively negate
every defense that might have been presented in the answer — Further,
defendant was not yet obligated to file answer to count which was subject of
pending motion to dismiss

T-QUIP
OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. EDWARD C. TIETIG AND TODD UDELSON, Appellees.
5th District. Case No. 5D15-3517. Opinion filed December 9, 2016. Appeal from
the Circuit Court for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell, III, Judge. Counsel:
Douglas D. Marks, of Boyd & Marks, L.L.C., Melbourne, for Appellant. Mark
Tietig, of Tietig & Tietig, P.A., Merritt Island, for Appellee, Edward C.
Tietig. No Appearance for Appellee, Todd Udelson.

(LAMBERT,
J.) T-Quip of Florida, Inc., (“Appellant”) appeals the final summary judgment
awarding Edward C. Tietig (“Appellee”) damages just over $1.33 million, with
the bulk of the judgment being an award of punitive damages. Because Appellee
failed to negate the affirmative defenses pleaded or to otherwise show how they
were legally insufficient and, as to the one cause of action to which no answer
was filed, failed to conclusively negate every defense that might have been
presented in the answer, we reverse.

Appellee
filed suit, alleging the following three causes of action: (1) fraud based upon
violations of section 713.31(2), Florida Statutes (2009); (2) slander of title;
and (3) abuse of process. Appellant filed separate answers to the first two
causes of action and a renewed motion to dismiss the third cause of action.
Appellant’s counsel was later granted leave to withdraw, and the motion to
dismiss was never called up for hearing or otherwise addressed by the trial
court. Appellee thereafter filed a motion for final summary judgment, and in
support of the motion, filed a sworn declaration pursuant to section 92.525,
Florida Statutes (2015), as to the factual allegations set forth in his
complaint. No other summary judgment evidence was filed in support of the
motion nor were affidavits filed by Appellant in opposition to the motion.
Additionally, neither the motion nor the declaration addressed the affirmative
defenses raised by Appellant. Following a hearing, that Appellant did not
attend, the court rendered the final summary judgment now on appeal.

The
standard of review of a trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment is de
novo. Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126,
130 (Fla. 2000). The standards for granting summary judgment applicable in this
case are familiar. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of
conclusively proving the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. Stop
& Shoppe Mart, Inc. v. Mehdi
, 854 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
(citations omitted). “[U]nless the moving party conclusively establishes, as a
matter of law and fact, its entitlement to the summary judgment, the opposing
party is not required to file a counter-affidavit to defeat the motion.” Haynes
v. Arman
, 192 So. 3d 546, 548-49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Lindsey v.
Cadence Bank, N.A.,
135 So. 3d 1164, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). The moving
party must also disprove the affirmative defenses or establish that they are
insufficient as a matter of law. Mehdi, 854 So. 2d at 786 (citations
omitted). Finally, “[a] party opposing a motion for summary judgment has no
initial obligation to submit affidavits or proof to establish its affirmative
defenses.” Colon v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 162 So. 3d 195, 198 (Fla.
5th DCA 2015) (citing Medhi, 854 So. 2d at 786).

Here,
Appellee’s sworn declaration in support of summary judgment only supports the
allegations of the complaint. “Where the movant merely denies the affirmative
defenses and the affidavit in support of summary judgment only supports the
allegations of the complaint and does not address the affirmative defenses, the
burden of disproving the affirmative defenses has not been met.” Medhi,
854 So. 2d at 786-87 (citations omitted).1 Thus, Appellee did not meet his
burden of conclusively disproving the affirmative defenses or otherwise
demonstrating their legal insufficiency.

Finally,
at the time of the summary judgment hearing, Appellant had not filed an answer
to the third cause of action for abuse of process. Appellant had filed a
renewed motion to dismiss count three, asserting that Appellee failed to allege
or plead sufficient ultimate facts to properly state a cause of action for
abuse of process. As previously stated, neither party called up for hearing
Appellant’s renewed motion to dismiss count three of Appellee’s complaint. Furthermore,
Appellant had not withdrawn the motion, nor had the court separately ruled on
the motion prior to the hearing on Appellee’s motion for final summary
judgment. As such, because the court had not addressed the renewed motion to
dismiss, Appellant was not yet obligated to file an answer to count three.

While
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) permits the filing of a motion for
summary judgment before an answer has been filed, under such circumstances, the
party moving for summary judgment has an “ ‘unusually heavy’ burden to
conclusively negate every defense that might be presented in the answer.” Greene
v. Lifestyle Builders of Orlando, Inc.
, 985 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA
2008) (citations omitted). We find that Appellee did not meet this heavy
burden.

Accordingly,
we reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED
and REMANDED. (COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1Appellee
did not file a reply to Appellant’s affirmative defenses. Thus, the affirmative
defenses are deemed denied. See Reno v. Adventist Health Sys./Sun-Belt, Inc.,
516 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (“[P]laintiff’s failure to file a reply to
the affirmative defense had the effect of denying the allegations of the
defense.”).

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982