DEAN M. GAST, APPELLANT,
v.
MAK ENTERPRISES OF GAINESVILLE, ETC., ET AL., 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.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment in favor of Mak Enterprises in a fraud and conspiracy claim arising from alleged improper repair of the plaintiff's vehicle air conditioning system. The court found that disputed facts regarding whether replacement parts were actually installed created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
The court held that the disparity in dimensions between the parts removed from Gast's vehicle and the parts the appellees claimed to have installed created a genuine issue of material fact, requiring the case to proceed to trial. Summary judgment was therefore improper.
[1] Summary judgment is improper if the evidence raises any issue of material fact, is conflicting, permits different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issue.
[2] When considering a motion for summary judgment, evidence and affidavits must be examined in a light most favorable to the non-movant.
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“The appellees, as movants for summary judgment, had the burden of proving conclusively the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment movants in this jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGast took his vehicle to Mak Enterprises for air conditioning repair. The defendants claimed to have replaced certain parts. Gast later had an indepen…
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 Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, C.J.
We reverse the final summary judgment entered in favor of the appellees on the appellant’s claim for fraud and conspiracy arising out of the repair of his motor vehicle’s air conditioning system.
The appellees, as movants for summary judgment, had the burden of proving conclusively the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Lawrence v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack, Inc., 842 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The evidence and affidavits are required to be examined in a light most favorable to the non-movant and if the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment is improper. Id. As explained in Chhabra v. Morales, 906 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), 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 issue, it should be submitted to the trier of fact.
In the appellant’s supplemental affidavit, he averred that he inspected the parts removed from his vehicle by an independent repair shop and personally compared the dimensions of the removed parts to the dimensions of the parts which the appellees averred they had purchased and installed in repairing his vehicle. The dimensions differed and the appellant maintains this creates a material issue of fact as to whether the appellees had in fact replaced the parts.
The appellees’ challenge to this supplemental affidavit, that it did not constitute admissible evidence because the appellant did not adequately allege that the parts he measured were in fact those removed from his vehicle, is without merit. The appellant stated in his supplemental affidavit that he had requested that the parts removed from his automobile be delivered to him and he confirmed in his deposition that he had the parts which were removed from his vehicle.
The disparity in the dimensions of these parts creates an inference that the parts asserted to have been installed by the appellees were not in fact installed. The appellees as movants for summary judgment failed to prove conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and therefore summary judgment was improvidently entered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wyman Lawrence v. PEP Boys-Manny MOE & Jack, Inc., 842 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Sujan Singh Chhabra and Jasbeer Kaur Chhabra v. Morales, 906 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)