DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANT(S),
v.
TRACY OWENS AND CASSANDRA OWENS, APPELLEE(S)
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.
The Florida Department of Revenue appealed a summary judgment that prevented them from placing liens on a joint bank account for child support arrearages. The appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the account's ownership and exempt status.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. There were genuine issues of material fact concerning the ownership and exempt status of the bank account, precluding summary judgment.
[1] A summary judgment should not be entered if there is the slightest doubt concerning an issue of material fact.
[2] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of conclusively demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact.
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“Generally, if there is the slightest doubt concerning an issue of material fact, a summary judgment should not be entered.”
establishes the standard for granting summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue (DOR) sought to place liens on a bank account to collect child support arrearages from Tracy Owens. The Owens claimed the ac…
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 Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
The Florida Department of Revenue (“DOR”) appeals from the final summary judgment entered below in favor of the appellees, Tracy and Cassandra Owens.
The trial court in its judgment found that the Owens possessed a joint account by the entireties and that DOR was, therefore, precluded from maintaining liens against the account on behalf of three women who were trying to collect child support arrearages from Tracy Owens. Generally, if there is the slightest doubt concerning an issue of material fact, a summary judgment should not be entered. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tracz, 799 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Besco U.S.A. Int’l Corp. v. Home Sav. of America FSB., 675 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of conclusively demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966); City of Cocoa v. Leffler, 762 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
The non-moving party is entitled to all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts before the court. See Richardson v. Wal-Mark Contracting Group, LLC, L.C., 814 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Because there are genuine issues of material fact in the present case, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Paragraph 6 of the complaint states that both Tracy and Cassandra Owens contributed funds to the account in question, and paragraph 9 alleges that all funds in that account were exempt from lien because they were joint funds owned by the Owens by the entireties. DOR’s answer specifically denies paragraphs 6 and 9, and prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment DOR filed documentary evidence that is directly contradictory to the factual position of Tracy Owens. See Wiggins v. Portmay Corp., 430 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Under the circumstances, therefore, the granting of a summary judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Owens was error. REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Besco USA Int'l Corp. v. Home Sav. OF Am. FSB, 675 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- City OF Cocoa v. Glynn Leffler, 762 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tracz, 799 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Wiggins v. Portmay Corp., 430 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Richardson v. Wal-Mark Contracting Grp., LLC, L.C., 814 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)