Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox

156 So. 3d 505, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18951, 2014 WL 6465125

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

DocketNo. 3D13-2424

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 So. 3d 505 (Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox) 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

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 156 So. 3d 505, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18951, 2014 WL 6465125 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Haas Automation, Inc. (“Haas”) appeals an order granting final summary judgment in favor of Dr. Robert Fox, Helene Fox, Dr. Steven Fox, Sherri Fox, and Fisher Auction Company, Inc. (collectively the Appellees). We reverse.

A review of the record reveals that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved that preclude entry of summary judgment including the Bid Acknowledgement and Receipt for Deposit form, which lists the total percentage of the Buyer’s Premium as $620,000 and the total contract price as $6,820,000. Because these factual issues should be resolved by a jury, summary judgment was improper. See Fla. Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096, 979 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Giardina v. Bowe, 680 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “Where there is room for rational difference of opinion as to the existence of evi-dentiary facts from which an ultimate factual conclusion is sought to be established, the court should submit the case to the jury.” 47th St. Serv. Station, Inc. v. Campos, 595 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Accordingly, we reverse the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appel-lees.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Haas Automation, Inc. (“Haas”) appeals an order granting final summary judgment in favor of Dr. Robert Fox, Helene Fox, Dr. Steven Fox, Sherri Fox, and Fisher Auction Company, Inc. (collectively the Appellees). We reverse.

A review of the record reveals that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved that preclude entry of summary judgment including the Bid Acknowledgement and Receipt for Deposit form, which lists the total percentage of the Buyer’s Premium as $620,000 and the total contract price as $6,820,000. Because these factual issues should be resolved by a jury, summary judgment was improper. See Fla. Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. 893/HC/97/9096, 979 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Giardina v. Bowe, 680 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “Where there is room for rational difference of opinion as to the existence of evi-dentiary facts from which an ultimate factual conclusion is sought to be established, the court should submit the case to the jury.” 47th St. Serv. Station, Inc. v. Campos, 595 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Accordingly, we reverse the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Appel-lees.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 3d 505, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18951, 2014 WL 6465125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haas-automation-inc-v-fox-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack