Armadeni v. Tejedo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armadeni v. Tejedo

700 So. 2d 416, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10720, 1997 WL 587053

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 24, 1997·No. No. 96-3149·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to the date the appellant knew or should have known of the existence of the fraudulent concealment action, and thus summary judgment is precluded. See Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976); Brugiere v. Credit Commerciale France, 679 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Grossman v. Greenberg, 619 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1993).

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to the date the appellant knew or should have known of the existence of the fraudulent concealment action, and thus summary judgment is precluded. See Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976); Brugiere v. Credit Commerciale France, 679 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Grossman v. Greenberg, 619 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1993).

Reversed.

Armadeni v. Tejedo, 700 So. 2d 416, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10720, 1997 WL 587053 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

700 So. 2d 416 (Armadeni v. Tejedo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related