McGowan v. Miami-Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGowan v. Miami-Dade County

724 So. 2d 683, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 355, 1999 WL 17818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1456

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 724 So. 2d 683 (McGowan v. Miami-Dade County) 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

McGowan v. Miami-Dade County, 724 So. 2d 683, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 355, 1999 WL 17818 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gary McGowan appeals a final summary judgment on a breach of contract claim and [684]*684an agreed order awarding attorney’s fees. We reverse the judgment as to Miami-Dade County: the record, which includes the affidavits submitted on rehearing, establishes the existence of the material factual issue whether the County breached the agreement with McGowan by failing to remove the pertinent documents from his personnel files and not from the internal affairs file.¹ See Fatherly v. California Fed. Bank, 703 So.2d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Sapphire Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Amerivend Corp., 691 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the County did not carry its burden on summary judgment. However, we affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of the other appellees. See E.C. Goldman, Inc. v. A/R/C Assocs., Inc., 543 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla.1989); Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764 (11th Cir.1991). Because we reverse the summary judgment in favor of the County, we must reverse that portion of the order awarding the County attorney’s fees and costs.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; order awarding the County fees and costs reversed; and cause remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gary McGowan appeals a final summary judgment on a breach of contract claim and [684]*684an agreed order awarding attorney’s fees. We reverse the judgment as to Miami-Dade County: the record, which includes the affidavits submitted on rehearing, establishes the existence of the material factual issue whether the County breached the agreement with McGowan by failing to remove the pertinent documents from his personnel files and not from the internal affairs file.¹ See Fatherly v. California Fed. Bank, 703 So.2d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Sapphire Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Amerivend Corp., 691 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the County did not carry its burden on summary judgment. However, we affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of the other appellees. See E.C. Goldman, Inc. v. A/R/C Assocs., Inc., 543 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla.1989); Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764 (11th Cir.1991). Because we reverse the summary judgment in favor of the County, we must reverse that portion of the order awarding the County attorney’s fees and costs.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; order awarding the County fees and costs reversed; and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 So. 2d 683, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 355, 1999 WL 17818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-miami-dade-county-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack