JOHN J. KORESKO V AND KORESKO & ASSOCIATES, A PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
EMMETT D. COE AND FNC CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
In this libel case, Koresko appealed a summary judgment award to Coe, arguing genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Coe published a defamatory letter. The court agreed, finding that Koresko's interrogatory answers disputed the supporting affidavits and that summary judgment was inappropriate.
Summary judgment was reversed because Coe did not meet the heavy burden of establishing irrefutably that Koresko could not prevail when Koresko's interrogatory answers disputed Coe's affidavits. The court also held that a party need not file affidavits to counter a movant's affidavits, and that interrogatory answers can create disputed issues of fact.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party irrefutably establishes that the nonmoving party cannot prevail.
[2] The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing irrefutably that the nonmoving party cannot prevail.”
Establishes the heavy evidentiary burden required of the moving party in summary judgment motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKoresko alleged that Coe published or caused to be published a libelous letter written by a third party. Coe submitted affidavits and deposition testi…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
In this action for libel, John J. Koresko V and Koresko & Associates (Koresko) appeal the trial court’s summary judgment order in favor of Emmett D. Coe and FNC Corp. (Coe), alleging that the record established the existence of genuine issues of material fact. We agree and reverse.
In the complaint, Koresko alleged that Coe published or caused to be published a libelous letter written by a third party. Affidavits and deposition testimony attached to Coe’s motion for summary judgment supported Coe’s assertion that Coe was not an original recipient of the letter and that he did not have the letter or a copy of it with him at the time Koresko alleged Coe published the letter. In answers to Coe’s interrogatories, Koresko alleged that Coe published the libelous letter to named persons at a seminar and that Coe published the letter to individuals at a mutual fund and two insurance companies with the express intention of interfering with Koresko’s advantageous business relationship. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Coe.
Summary judgment may be granted only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing irrefutably that the nonmoving party cannot prevail. Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Because Ko-resko’s answers to Coe’s interrogatories dispute the statements in the affidavits in support of Coe’s motion for summary judgment, Coe did not establish irrefutably that Kores-ko could not possibly prevail; therefore, Coe did not meet the heavy burden required for summary judgment. Accordingly, whether Coe published or caused to be published a copy of the allegedly defamatory letter is a question of fact which is not appropriate for summary judgment.
Finally, it appears that the trial court may have granted summary judgment in favor of Coe because Koresko failed to present affidavits countering those presented by Coe. If this was, in fact, the basis for the ruling, the trial court erred. A party attempting to defeat a motion for summary judgment is not required to file an affidavit to counter the movant’s affidavits. Elliott v. Dugger, 542 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Further, answers to interrogatories can create disputed issues of fact. See Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and FICARROTTA, GASPER J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Land Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Gulf View Townhomes, LLC, 75 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…moving party’s claim. See Semoran Pines Condo. Ass’n v. Arab Termite & Pest Control of Fla., Inc., 543 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (citing Misal Constr. Co. v. Rusco Indus., Inc., 403 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)); see also Koresko v. Coe, 683 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA [*870] 1996) (holding that a party attempting to defeat a motion for summary judgment was not required to file an affidavit to counter the movant’s affidavit when the allegations in the movant’s affidavit conflicted with its own an…
-
LIN v. Demings, 219 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…d that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., 928 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)); accord Koresko v. Coe, 683 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court and the appellate court are not permitted to weigh the evidence nor may they determin…
-
D'Attilio v. Fifth Ave. Bus. Ass'n, Inc., 710 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…osition as an invitee at the Association-sponsored event. Based on this testimony, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association. Summary judgment is only appropriate if no material issues of fact remain. See Koresko v. Coe, 683 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In this case, the scope of the Association’s duty to Mrs. D’Attilio remained to be determined. The Association, as the fair’s coordinator, had some responsibility to ensure the comfort and safety of its invitees. See Thompson v.…
Authorities Cited
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Watkins DRY Wall, Inc. v. Drummond Court Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Elliott v. Dugger, 542 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)