JOE COHEN AND PAULINE BROOKS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELLIOTT L. FEINBERG, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1961-03-13
No. 60-372
HORTON, C. J., CARROLL, CHAS., J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.
127 So. 2d 685 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1961)

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.

Synopsis

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment granted to a plaintiff alleging partnership interests. The appellate court found that triable issues of fact existed, precluding summary judgment.


Holding

Yes, triable issues of fact existed, and therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted.


Key Quotes

“In our opinion, the record discloses triable issues of fact which may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment, including the following: whether plaintiff acquired a partnership interest; and whether the transaction was as alleged or consisted of loans by plaintiff to defendants, the proceeds of which were then paid into the partnership and later repaid to plaintiff from the partnership.”

This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the summary judgment, highlighting the existence of factual disputes.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff, alleging he was a partner, sued to foreclose the partnership interests of the defendants for their failure to contribute new capital as…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

*686PER CURIAM.

In a suit by an alleged partner to foreclose the partnership interests of defendants for their alleged failure to pay in new capital when called on, pursuant to terms of a partnership agreement, summary judgment was granted to plaintiff, and defendants appealed.

In our opinion, the record discloses triable issues of fact which may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment, including the following: whether plaintiff acquired a partnership interest; and whether the transaction was as alleged or consisted of loans by plaintiff to defendants, the proceeds of which were then paid into the partnership and later repaid to plaintiff from the partnership. Therefore, the summary judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

Reversed and remanded.

HORTON, C. J., CARROLL, CHAS., J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw