Manassas Investments, Inc. v. O'Hanrahan

817 So. 2d 1080, 2002 WL 1233401
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 7, 2002
Docket2D01-5466
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 817 So. 2d 1080 (Manassas Investments, Inc. v. O'Hanrahan) 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
Manassas Investments, Inc. v. O'Hanrahan, 817 So. 2d 1080, 2002 WL 1233401 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

817 So.2d 1080 (2002)

MANASSAS INVESTMENTS, INC., a dissolved Florida corporation; Youssef Zaitouni; and Zoox Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants,
v.
Edward J.A. O'HANRAHAN, Jr., as Trustee of the O'Hanrahan Revocable Trust Agreement, Appellee.

No. 2D01-5466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 7, 2002.

Jesse L. Skipper of Jesse L. Skipper, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellants.

Douglas M. Buchwalter, Clearwater, for Appellee.

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Manassas Investments, Inc., Youssef Zaitouni, and Zoox Investments, Inc., appeal the order granting summary judgment in favor of the trustee of the O'Hanrahan Trust in a foreclosure action. Because the record contains disputed issues of material facts, including the movant's failure to address Manassas' affirmative defenses, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

O'Hanrahan's affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment averred default on three violations of the mortgage agreement: the transfer of the property, the nonpayment of 1999 personal property taxes, and the nonpayment of 1998 and 1999 real property taxes. Manassas' legally sufficient affirmative defenses were completely unrefuted. For the movant to prevail on a summary judgment motion, he or she must either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient. See Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). O'Hanrahan failed to do either.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Kimmick v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
83 So. 3d 877 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Francel v. Gries Investment Fund, LLC
67 So. 3d 269 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Senchuk
36 So. 3d 716 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Leal v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
21 So. 3d 907 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Morroni v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP. III
903 So. 2d 311 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Jones v. STATE EX REL. CITY OF WINTER HAVEN
870 So. 2d 52 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Martinez v. Healthsouth Doctor's Hospital
817 So. 2d 1080 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
817 So. 2d 1080, 2002 WL 1233401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manassas-investments-inc-v-ohanrahan-fladistctapp-2002.