Gimenez v. Napoles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gimenez v. Napoles

928 So. 2d 506, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7013, 2006 WL 1331492

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 2006

DocketNo. 3D05-1009

StatusPublished

This text of 928 So. 2d 506 (Gimenez v. Napoles) 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

Gimenez v. Napoles, 928 So. 2d 506, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7013, 2006 WL 1331492 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mitzi Ann Giménez (“Gimenez”), appeals the trial court’s order, granting summary judgment in favor of Alexander Ñapóles, Maria Ñapóles, Barry A. Imber, Al-Flex Exterminators, Inc., and Structural Tenting Corporation (collectively “defendants”), in an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, civil theft, and civil conspiracy. We reverse.

Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). However, summary judgment is infrequently proper in fraud cases because the issue usually turns on the axis of circumstances surrounding the complete transaction, including circumstantial evidence of intent and knowledge. See Cohen v. Kravit Estate Buyers, Inc., 843 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Here, we find that there are several genuine issues of material fact surrounding the alleged fraud, which merit a jury determination. Thus, the trial judge clearly should have not granted summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a trial on all issues.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mitzi Ann Giménez (“Gimenez”), appeals the trial court’s order, granting summary judgment in favor of Alexander Ñapóles, Maria Ñapóles, Barry A. Imber, Al-Flex Exterminators, Inc., and Structural Tenting Corporation (collectively “defendants”), in an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, civil theft, and civil conspiracy. We reverse.

Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). However, summary judgment is infrequently proper in fraud cases because the issue usually turns on the axis of circumstances surrounding the complete transaction, including circumstantial evidence of intent and knowledge. See Cohen v. Kravit Estate Buyers, Inc., 843 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Here, we find that there are several genuine issues of material fact surrounding the alleged fraud, which merit a jury determination. Thus, the trial judge clearly should have not granted summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a trial on all issues.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 So. 2d 506, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7013, 2006 WL 1331492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gimenez-v-napoles-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack