AMERIL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK REGIONAL RAIL CORPORATION F/K/A BEST SELLERS GROUP, INC., 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.
Ameril Corporation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its three-count complaint against N.Y. Regional Rail Corporation for recovery on promissory notes. The trial court granted summary judgment based on an earlier assignment and statute of limitations defenses, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
The court reversed the summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding both the ownership of the notes and the application of the statute of limitations, which precluded summary judgment as a matter of law.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when the evidence raises any issue of material fact, is conflicting, permits different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issues.
[2] A motion for summary judgment must be denied if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present.
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“[A] party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought... A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law...”
Establishes the stringent standard for granting summary judgment in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmeril Corporation filed a complaint seeking recovery on three promissory notes against N.Y. Regional Rail Corporation. N.Y. Regional answered with tw…
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 Question Of Law Vs. Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Ameril Corporation filed a three count complaint against N.Y. Regional Rail Corporation seeking recovery on three promissory notes. N.Y. Regional answered the complaint arguing that Ameril had no right to enforce the notes due to an earlier assignment, and also that recovery on one of the notes was barred by the statute of limitations. Notwithstanding evidence submitted by Ameril putting into question both of these assertions, the trial court entered final summary judgment in N.Y. Regional’s favor. Because we conclude that questions of fact remain as to both ownership of the notes and application of the statute of limitations, we reverse the summary judgment ordered below:
The law regarding summary judgment is well-established:
[A] party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought... A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law...
If the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it.
Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (FIa.1985) (citations omitted). Succinctly put, “[w]hen acting upon a motion for summary judgment, if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citations omitted).
Norman S. Cohen, M.D., P.A. v. Vining, 917 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 643 (Fla. 1999)(“It is a well-settled principle of Florida jurisprudence that summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so clear and undisputed that only questions of law remain.”); University of Miami v. Bogorff, 583 So. 2d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 1991)(“A summary judgment is properly rendered only upon showing a complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shanks v. Bergerman (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…ial fact must be resolved first in order to then determine whether those payments tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to section 95.051(1)(f), and the question must be resolved by the trier of fact. See Ameril Corp. v. N.Y. Reg'l Rail Corp., 943 So. 2d 264, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that questions of fact as to the application of statute of limitations (in part) precluded summary judgment); cf. Lambert v. Weeks, 554 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding that opposing affidavits regarding…
-
Conrad FLB Mgmt., LLC v. Diamond Blue Int'l, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ent of Management, LLC. Together, these affidavits created, at the very least, a question of fact precluding summary judgment on the issue of whether Partnership, LLC is liable for Management, LLC’s notes. See Ameril Corp. v. N.Y. Reg’l Rail Corp., 943 So. 2d 264, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversing summary judgment when questions of fact remain regarding liability under promissory notes); Killgo v. Hoffman, 320 So. 2d 417, 417-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Appellees also argue that Partnership, LLC should be held l…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Univ. OF Miami v. Bogorff, 583 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1991)
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- L.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 917 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Norman S. Cohen, M.D., P.A. v. Vining, 917 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)