Cosme v. Bailen Automocion, S.A.
This text of 580 So. 2d 344 (Cosme v. Bailen Automocion, S.A.) 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.
Opinion
We reverse the summary judgment based upon a finding that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, including whether the promissory note secured payment for aircraft parts purchased by and delivered to Bailen Automocion, S.A. See Suris v. Tropical Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 515 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Home Health Serv. of Sarasota, Inc. v. McQuay-Garrett, Sullivan & Co., 462 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Gulotty v. Estate of Wilkie, 532 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Kelly Tractor Co., 518 So.2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The record discloses that the parties were involved in complex business relationships and transactions resulting in claims and counterclaims which should not be resolved in summary proceedings. 5G’s Car Sales, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, 581 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“[T]he record plainly raises genuine issues, concerning virtually all of the material facts, which may properly be resolved only by trial.”). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
580 So. 2d 344, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5361, 1991 WL 97992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosme-v-bailen-automocion-sa-fladistctapp-1991.