International Commercial Properties, Inc. v. O'Donnell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

International Commercial Properties, Inc. v. O'Donnell

462 So. 2d 95, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 172, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14079

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 9, 1985

DocketNo. 84-797

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 95 (International Commercial Properties, Inc. v. O'Donnell) 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

International Commercial Properties, Inc. v. O'Donnell, 462 So. 2d 95, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 172, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants file this appeal from a $48,000 summary judgment rendered upon a contract and promissory note executed in consideration of the services of the plaintiff who obtained investors in a limited partnership. We reverse because plaintiff failed to demonstrate the lack of genuine issues of material fact with respect to the affirmative defenses involving (1) failure of a condition precedent to liability under the contract and note, (2) unenforceability of a claim for the sale of securities by an unregistered broker, and (3) capacity in which defendant Kerper signed the documents. Howdeshell v. First National Bank of Clearwater, 369 So.2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Admittedly, certain of these defenses were only raised in a motion to amend the answer which was filed a week before the summary judgment hearing. However, since the court granted the motion to amend nunc pro tunc as of the date of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, these defenses must be considered as part of the pleadings.

Reversed and remanded.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants file this appeal from a $48,000 summary judgment rendered upon a contract and promissory note executed in consideration of the services of the plaintiff who obtained investors in a limited partnership. We reverse because plaintiff failed to demonstrate the lack of genuine issues of material fact with respect to the affirmative defenses involving (1) failure of a condition precedent to liability under the contract and note, (2) unenforceability of a claim for the sale of securities by an unregistered broker, and (3) capacity in which defendant Kerper signed the documents. Howdeshell v. First National Bank of Clearwater, 369 So.2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Admittedly, certain of these defenses were only raised in a motion to amend the answer which was filed a week before the summary judgment hearing. However, since the court granted the motion to amend nunc pro tunc as of the date of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, these defenses must be considered as part of the pleadings.

Reversed and remanded.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 95, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 172, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-commercial-properties-inc-v-odonnell-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack