DAVID M. SANTIAGO
v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR MFRA TRUST 2015-1
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.
A trial court satisfies rule 1.510(a)'s statement-on-the-record requirement by either stating reasons in the written order or making oral pronouncement at the hearing, and when the appellate record lacks a hearing transcript, the court cannot determine whether the requirement was satisfied via oral pronouncement.
[1] A trial court satisfies Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a)'s statement-on-the-record requirement for granting summary judgment by either stating its reasons in the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To comply with this requirement, it will not be enough for the court to make a conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute as to a material fact. The court must state the reasons for its decision with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review.”
Citation to In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 77 (Fla. 2021), explaining the specificity required under rule 1.510(a)
David M. Santiago appealed a summary judgment order granted in favor of Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee for MFRA Trust 2015-1. The …
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 Genuine Dispute Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-1562 Lower Tribunal No. 2018-CA-005130 _____________________________
DAVID M. SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Trustee for MFRA TRUST 2015-1, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Luis F. Calderon, Judge.
January 30, 2026
PRATT, J.
Appellant David M. Santiago appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Wilmington Trust, National Association, not in its individual capacity, but solely as trustee for MFRA Trust 2015-1. We write solely to explain why we reject Appellant’s argument regarding Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a)’s statement-on-the-record requirement.1
2
Appellant asserts that the trial court’s written order failed to include sufficient reasons for granting Appellee’s summary judgment motion pursuant to rule 1.510(a). See generally Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) (“The court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.”); In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 77 (Fla. 2021) (“To comply with this requirement, it will not be enough for the court to make a conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute as to a material fact. The court must state the reasons for its decision with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review.”). However, Appellant’s argument fails to acknowledge that a trial court can satisfy rule 1.510(a)’s statement-on-the-record requirement either “by stating its reasons in the order granting final summary judgment or by oral pronouncement.” Tucker v. LNV Corp., 363 So. 3d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In this case, the trial court held a hearing on Appellee’s summary judgment motion. Because the record on appeal does not include a transcript from the summary judgment hearing, we “cannot determine whether the trial court satisfied the ‘statement on the record’ requirement via oral pronouncement.” Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 399 So. 3d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (quoting Tucker, 363 So. 3d at 1098).
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., concur.
3
Anthony N. Legendre, II, of the Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC, Maitland, for Appellant.
Eric M. Levine, of Atlas | Solomon, LLP, Stuart, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Beaches MRI v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 363 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 399 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)