Kurtz v. Irwin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kurtz v. Irwin

249 So. 2d 482, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6376, 1971 A.M.C. 2658

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1971

DocketNo. 70-1098

StatusPublished

This text of 249 So. 2d 482 (Kurtz v. Irwin) 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

Kurtz v. Irwin, 249 So. 2d 482, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6376, 1971 A.M.C. 2658 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, ALTO, Associate Judge.

This appeal brings for review a summary final judgment.

A suit was brought by the appellee to recover for parts and services expended in the repair of the appellants’ boat. The appellants gave a check for the bill and took the boat and stopped payment on the check. Suit was brought for the services rendered equal to the amount of the check.

Appellants filed a general denial, whereupon motion for summary judgment for the plaintiff was made. Supporting the motion was an affidavit of the plaintiff substantiating the allegations in the complaint. The motion for summary final judgment was filed on June 29, 1970, supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff filed June 24, 1970. On August 3, 1970, the defendants filed an affidavit in support of their defense, reciting and pointing out the defects in the workmanship and justifying their failure to honor the check. On September 1, 1970, the trial court entered a summary final judgment for the plaintiff.

The rule has long been settled in this jurisdiction that summary judgments are improper where there is a showing of an issue to be tried, such as appears in this case. This rule has long since been settled in the case of Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Shollenberger v. Baskin, FlaApp.1969, 227 So.2d 79.

Hence, the summary final judgment i¡ reversed with directions to proceed not inconsistent with these views.

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

ADAMS, ALTO, Associate Judge.

This appeal brings for review a summary final judgment.

A suit was brought by the appellee to recover for parts and services expended in the repair of the appellants’ boat. The appellants gave a check for the bill and took the boat and stopped payment on the check. Suit was brought for the services rendered equal to the amount of the check.

Appellants filed a general denial, whereupon motion for summary judgment for the plaintiff was made. Supporting the motion was an affidavit of the plaintiff substantiating the allegations in the complaint. The motion for summary final judgment was filed on June 29, 1970, supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff filed June 24, 1970. On August 3, 1970, the defendants filed an affidavit in support of their defense, reciting and pointing out the defects in the workmanship and justifying their failure to honor the check. On September 1, 1970, the trial court entered a summary final judgment for the plaintiff.

The rule has long been settled in this jurisdiction that summary judgments are improper where there is a showing of an issue to be tried, such as appears in this case. This rule has long since been settled in the case of Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Shollenberger v. Baskin, FlaApp.1969, 227 So.2d 79.

Hence, the summary final judgment i¡ reversed with directions to proceed not inconsistent with these views.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 So. 2d 482, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6376, 1971 A.M.C. 2658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtz-v-irwin-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack