A trial court violates due process and civil procedure rules by granting a motion for summary judgment without providing the opposing party notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The plaintiff appeals final summary judgments entered in favor of multiple defendants, while two defendants cross-appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss. The central issue is whether the trial court violated procedural rules by granting one defendant’s motion for summary judgment without providing notice or a hearing. The court applies the rule that a party opposing a summary judgment motion is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Because the trial court granted the motion eight days after filing without notice or a hearing, it violated due process and civil procedure rules. The court reverses the summary judgment in favor of that specific defendant and remands for further proceedings, while affirming all other judgments.
where trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment without a hearing or notice to plaintiff it violated Rule 1.510(c) and plaintiff's due process rights requiring reversal
- Merlande Richard v. Bank of Am., 258 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).published(where trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment without a hearing or notice to plaintiff it violated Rule 1.510(c) and plaintiff's due process rights requiring reversal)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Lezcano, 22 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).published(where trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment without a hearing or notice to plaintiff it violated Rule 1.510(c) and plaintiffs due process rights requiring reversal)
At page 411 Reversing summary judgment for lack of notice and hearing2 citing cases745 So.2d 411 (1999) Andrew GREENE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Mark SEIGLE, Ronald Wright, Jacqueline Sue Turoff, B.J. Bond, Lisa Strachan, David Steele, and…
- Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, 242 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).published To the extent that summary judgment evidence has not already been filed with the court, the adverse party must serve a copy on the movant pursuant to rule 1.080 at least 5 days prior to the day of the hearing, or by delivery to the movant'…
- WG Evergreen Woods SH, LLC v. Fares, 207 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).publishedLezcano, 22 So.3d at 634 ; see also Greene v. Seigle, 745 So.2d 411, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kozich, 609 So.2d at 148 .
v.
Mark SEIGLE, Ronald Wright, Jacqueline Sue Turoff, B.J. Bond, Lisa Strachan, David Steele, and On-Target Solutions, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Seth Honowitz and Scott A. Mager of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Glasser & Boreth, Plantation, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Ronald E. Solomon of the Law Offices of Ronald E. Solomon, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee/cross-appellant-Mark Seigle.
Jana Gold Taylor and Charles T. Whitelock of Whitelock & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee/cross-appellant-Ronald Wright.
Catherine Rafferty of Edward M. Kay, P.A., Fort Lauderdale for Appellees/cross-appellants-Jacqueline Sue Turoff, B.J. Bond, Lisa Strachan, On-Target Solutions, Inc.
Patricia A. Burton, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee/cross-appellant-David Steele.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Andrew Greene appeals final summary judgments entered in favor of all defendants. Defendants Mark Seigle and Ronald Wright cross-appeal the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss. We affirm in all respects, except to reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of Wright.
Eight days after Wright filed his motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted it without a hearing or notice to Plaintiff. This violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) and Plaintiff's due process rights and thus requires a reversal. See Mondestin v. Duval Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 500 So.2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard). Accordingly, final summary judgment in favor of Wright is reversed and this case remanded for further[*412] proceedings against him. In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.