Elkins v. Barbella

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elkins v. Barbella

603 So. 2d 726, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9417, 1992 WL 216583

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 9, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1362

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 603 So. 2d 726 (Elkins v. Barbella) 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

Elkins v. Barbella, 603 So. 2d 726, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9417, 1992 WL 216583 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Once again we reverse a summary judgment because the moving party failed to disprove opposing affirmative defenses or establish that they were insufficient as a matter of law. See Haven Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Kirian, 579 So.2d 730 (Fla.1991); Martin v. Lacertosa, 545 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Lunken v. Glatter, 451 So.2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Arvida Corp., 421 So.2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Esteban v. Cordoba, 398 So.2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Bunner v. Florida Coast Bank of Coral Springs, 390 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Here, Barbella has merely denied the affirmative defenses, and her affidavit supported only the allegations in her complaint without addressing the defenses. Her challenges on appeal to the legal sufficiency of the defenses were never made to the trial court, and we cannot consider them for first time on appeal. The Race Inc. v. Lake & River Recreational Properties Inc., 573 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). We have no way of knowing whether she has conclusively refuted these defenses. Pandol Brothers Inc. v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 450 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA1984).

REVERSED.

LETTS, DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Once again we reverse a summary judgment because the moving party failed to disprove opposing affirmative defenses or establish that they were insufficient as a matter of law. See Haven Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Kirian, 579 So.2d 730 (Fla.1991); Martin v. Lacertosa, 545 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Lunken v. Glatter, 451 So.2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Arvida Corp., 421 So.2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Esteban v. Cordoba, 398 So.2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Bunner v. Florida Coast Bank of Coral Springs, 390 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Here, Barbella has merely denied the affirmative defenses, and her affidavit supported only the allegations in her complaint without addressing the defenses. Her challenges on appeal to the legal sufficiency of the defenses were never made to the trial court, and we cannot consider them for first time on appeal. The Race Inc. v. Lake & River Recreational Properties Inc., 573 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). We have no way of knowing whether she has conclusively refuted these defenses. Pandol Brothers Inc. v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 450 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA1984).

REVERSED.

LETTS, DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 So. 2d 726, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9417, 1992 WL 216583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elkins-v-barbella-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack