Montiel v. Trevilla

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montiel v. Trevilla

687 So. 2d 849, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 51, 1997 WL 1672

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-972

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 849 (Montiel v. Trevilla) 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

Montiel v. Trevilla, 687 So. 2d 849, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 51, 1997 WL 1672 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the record in the underlying suit on a promissory note, we find that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to liability where there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining and the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). However, as to damages, we find that the plaintiff’s verified motion for summary judgment and the defendant’s affidavit conflict as to the amount that was due and owing. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff the sum of $32,844.31 plus prejudgment interest. On remand, the parties should present evidence to the trial court of the amounts due and owing.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the record in the underlying suit on a promissory note, we find that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to liability where there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining and the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). However, as to damages, we find that the plaintiff’s verified motion for summary judgment and the defendant’s affidavit conflict as to the amount that was due and owing. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff the sum of $32,844.31 plus prejudgment interest. On remand, the parties should present evidence to the trial court of the amounts due and owing.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 849, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 51, 1997 WL 1672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montiel-v-trevilla-fladistctapp-1997.