WILMO ON THE BLUFFS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wilmo on the Bluffs, a developer, challenged a trial court's summary judgment that prohibited it from constructing grade-level vehicular crossings over CSX Transportation's railroad right-of-way bisecting its property. The court affirmed, holding that the developer was estopped from challenging on appeal the absence of material fact issues that it had conceded in the trial court.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. The developer was estopped from asserting on appeal that genuine issues of material fact existed on specific questions where it had specifically moved for summary judgment and asserted the absence of such issues in the trial court.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matte…
[2] The burden on a party moving for summary judgment is greater than the burden a plaintiff must carry at trial, as the movant must prove the nonexistence of a genuine issue…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A movant may not, however, specifically ask for summary judgment or decree and assert that there was no genuine issue of material fact on a specific question and then on appeal take the contrary position that there was a material issue of fact on the same question.”
Establishes the estoppel doctrine that bars the developer from contradicting its trial court position on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilmo on the Bluffs purchased property bisected by CSX's 100-foot-wide railroad easement (established by 1881 indenture) between Scenic Highway and Es…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, developer Wilmo on the Bluffs, Inc., challenges the trial court’s summary judgment prohibiting construction of additional grade-level vehicular crossings traversing appellee’s, railroad CSX Transportation, Inc., railroad right-of-way.1 Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment where genuine issues of material fact remain for resolution. We disagree and affirm.
Appellee’s 100-foot-wide railroad easement bisects appellant’s property between Scenic Highway and Escambia Bay, south of I — 10 and north of Gull Point. Appellant purchased the property to develop single-family residential lots on both sides of the track assuming that because other crossings existed nearby it could obtain permission to construct a private crossing. However, appellee refused to grant the easement.
Cross-motions for summary judgment do not mean in themselves that no genuine issue of fact exists. Couch Const. Co. v. Dept. of Transportation, 537 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1989). The determination of whether there are genuine issues of material fact is a question of law to be decided by the court. Daniel Laurent, Inc. v. Coral Television, 431 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Where such issues of fact exist, that both parties filed motions for summary judgment claiming the nonexistence of those facts will not entitle the court to decide such issues without a trial. Id. Furthermore, a party moving for a summary judgment concedes that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact, but such concession is only for the purposes of the motion made by him and does not carry over to be used against the movant to the benefit or advantage of the adversary. Id. However, an exception to these general rules has been carved out:
A movant may not, however, specifically ask for summary judgment or decree and assert that there was no genuine issue of material fact on a specific question and then on appeal take the contrary position that there was a material issue of fact on the same question. Geiser v. Permacrete, Inc., 90 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla.1956). (Emphasis added).
Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. Fields, 181 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1966); Wilson v. Milligan, 147 So. 2d 618, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Both parties presented evidence and moved for summary judgment on many specific questions. After specifically asking for summary judgment and asserting no genuine issue of material fact on each specific question, appellant takes a contrary position on appeal by asserting that a genuine material issue of fact did exist on the same specific questions. Therefore, we find that this case falls within the exception and we affirm the trial court’s denying appellant’s, and granting appellee’s, motions for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur. . By an indenture dated 1881, Wilmo’s predecessor-in-interest, the Yniestras, granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed to CSX’s predecessor-in-interest, Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad Co., the subject easement or right of way.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillip and Delores Floyd v. Homes Beautiful Constr. Co., 710 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…t DCA 1988). However, a party may not move for summary judgment claiming "there is no issue of fact with regards to a specific question and then take a contrary position on appeal.” Couch, 537 So. 2d at 632; Wilmo on the Bluffs, Inc. v. CSX Transp., 559 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In the instant case, the Floyds are not taking a position on appeal inconsistent with the one taken in their motion for partial summary judgment. There, they asserted that the settlement and release agreement “when read in its e…
-
Josef Bruns v. Bruns, 682 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…judgment. A movant may not ask the trial court to decide a specific question on summary judgment, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and then take the contrary position on appeal. See Wilmo on the Bluffs, Inc. v. CSX Transp., 559 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Board of Pub. Instruction of Dade County v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1971). In any event, one alternative basis of the trial court’s decision was that appellees w…
-
Muina v. Cornelia Canning and Judy Dew, 717 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…essfully complain about an error for which he or she is responsible or of rulings that he or she invited the court to make. Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop, [*554] Inc., 656 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1995). See also, Wilmo on the Bluffs, Inc. v. CSX Transp., 559 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(a party-may not specifically ask for summary judgment on grounds there was no genuine issue of material fact, and then on appeal take the position that there was a material issue of fact on the same question); Risk Management Ser…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Geiser v. Permacrete, Inc., 90 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1956)
- Wilson v. Milligan, 147 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Fields, 181 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Couch Constr. Co. v. The Fla. Dep't OF Transp. & City of Tampa, 537 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Daniel Laurent, Inc. v. Coral Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Frick v. Levering, 188 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1966)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Blair, 188 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1966)