Markham v. Thompson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Markham v. Thompson

368 So. 2d 957, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14668

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1979

DocketNo. 78-776

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 368 So. 2d 957 (Markham v. Thompson) 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

Markham v. Thompson, 368 So. 2d 957, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14668 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, plaintiff below, in his suit on an assignment contract. We reverse.

Our review of the record in this cause reveals, as urged by appellant, that at the time the trial court entered its final summary judgment in favor of appellee there existed justiciable questions of fact in regard to the issue of rescission and that the facts, as shown by the proofs before the trial court, did not justify the imposition of the judgment. See, e. g., Moseley v. Turrell, 354 So.2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Steinhardt v. Lehman, 338 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Megdell v. Wieder, 327 So.2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.510.

We note that in a previous appeal we stated that the complaint, as amended in this cause stated a cause of action for the remedies sought, but in no way did we rule upon the proofs of fact involved herein. Accordingly, the final summary judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in the trial court.

Reversed and remanded.

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

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, plaintiff below, in his suit on an assignment contract. We reverse.

Our review of the record in this cause reveals, as urged by appellant, that at the time the trial court entered its final summary judgment in favor of appellee there existed justiciable questions of fact in regard to the issue of rescission and that the facts, as shown by the proofs before the trial court, did not justify the imposition of the judgment. See, e. g., Moseley v. Turrell, 354 So.2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Steinhardt v. Lehman, 338 So.2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Megdell v. Wieder, 327 So.2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.510.

We note that in a previous appeal we stated that the complaint, as amended in this cause stated a cause of action for the remedies sought, but in no way did we rule upon the proofs of fact involved herein. Accordingly, the final summary judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in the trial court.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 So. 2d 957, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markham-v-thompson-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack