Gelman v. Murphy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gelman v. Murphy

432 So. 2d 805, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1983

DocketNo. AM-488

StatusPublished

This text of 432 So. 2d 805 (Gelman v. Murphy) 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

Gelman v. Murphy, 432 So. 2d 805, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19697 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/appellee Mary Joan Murphy with regard to Count I of defendants/appellants’ counterclaim. The counterclaim in Count I sought to require Murphy to remove a split-rail fence which she erected on her proper[806]*806ty, allegedly in violation of certain restrictive covenants.¹ We reverse.

Appellants assert that the trial court erred in entering the partial summary judgment, which was based in part on appellee’s affidavit filed after entry of the summary judgment, and in part on letters written by Stanley Gelman, an attorney as well as a party during prelitigation settlement negotiations. We reverse the order of summary judgment since appellee has not satisfied her burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The affidavit of appellant Aaron Grubbs demonstrates that, at the time summary judgment was sought, there existed a genuine issue as to whether Grubbs gave Murphy permission to erect the fence in question, thereby waiving the requirements of the restrictive covenants.

Having reversed the partial summary judgment on this basis, we need not address the issues raised by appellants. We decline to rule on the admissibility of the two letters written by Gelman, leaving that determination to the discretion of the trial judge after he has had an opportunity to weigh all of the evidence presented to him.²

The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH and ZEH-MER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/appellee Mary Joan Murphy with regard to Count I of defendants/appellants’ counterclaim. The counterclaim in Count I sought to require Murphy to remove a split-rail fence which she erected on her proper[806]*806ty, allegedly in violation of certain restrictive covenants.¹ We reverse.

Appellants assert that the trial court erred in entering the partial summary judgment, which was based in part on appellee’s affidavit filed after entry of the summary judgment, and in part on letters written by Stanley Gelman, an attorney as well as a party during prelitigation settlement negotiations. We reverse the order of summary judgment since appellee has not satisfied her burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The affidavit of appellant Aaron Grubbs demonstrates that, at the time summary judgment was sought, there existed a genuine issue as to whether Grubbs gave Murphy permission to erect the fence in question, thereby waiving the requirements of the restrictive covenants.

Having reversed the partial summary judgment on this basis, we need not address the issues raised by appellants. We decline to rule on the admissibility of the two letters written by Gelman, leaving that determination to the discretion of the trial judge after he has had an opportunity to weigh all of the evidence presented to him.²

The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH and ZEH-MER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 So. 2d 805, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelman-v-murphy-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack