Barnett Bank of South Florida v. All Tech, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnett Bank of South Florida v. All Tech, Inc.

588 So. 2d 680, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11582, 1991 WL 232240

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1991

DocketNo. 91-440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 588 So. 2d 680 (Barnett Bank of South Florida v. All Tech, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett Bank of South Florida v. All Tech, Inc., 588 So. 2d 680, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11582, 1991 WL 232240 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the trial court’s entry of a Final Summary Judgment in favor of the appellees. The appellant contends that the said summary judgment was entered by the trial court in a manner that is violative of Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, during a hearing on other motions, the appel-lees made ore tenus motions for summary judgment against the appellant. Despite the fact that the appellees made these motions orally at the hearing, obviously without the required twenty day advance notice to the appellants, the trial court granted the motions and entered Final Summary Judgments in favor of the appellees. Clearly, the very specific requirements of Rule 1.510(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were ignored by both the appel-lees and the trial court. Appellant argues that the foregoing resulted in reversible error. We agree.

Accordingly, the Final Summary Judgment entered in favor of the appellees must be reversed. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the trial court’s entry of a Final Summary Judgment in favor of the appellees. The appellant contends that the said summary judgment was entered by the trial court in a manner that is violative of Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, during a hearing on other motions, the appel-lees made ore tenus motions for summary judgment against the appellant. Despite the fact that the appellees made these motions orally at the hearing, obviously without the required twenty day advance notice to the appellants, the trial court granted the motions and entered Final Summary Judgments in favor of the appellees. Clearly, the very specific requirements of Rule 1.510(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were ignored by both the appel-lees and the trial court. Appellant argues that the foregoing resulted in reversible error. We agree.

Accordingly, the Final Summary Judgment entered in favor of the appellees must be reversed. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 So. 2d 680, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11582, 1991 WL 232240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-bank-of-south-florida-v-all-tech-inc-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack