Solimine v. Numerica Savings Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Solimine v. Numerica Savings Bank

587 So. 2d 505, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9490, 1991 WL 181558

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2808

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 587 So. 2d 505 (Solimine v. Numerica Savings Bank) 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

Solimine v. Numerica Savings Bank, 587 So. 2d 505, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9490, 1991 WL 181558 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of the summary judgment entered against them. Their affirmative defense alleged appellees knew of the secondary financing and therefore, could not have relied on appellants’ sworn statement to the contrary. Appellees failed to negate that affirmative defense. See Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 364 So.2d 47, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 461 (1979). Hence, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether appellees relied on those representations, which precluded entry of the summary judgment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of the summary judgment entered against them. Their affirmative defense alleged appellees knew of the secondary financing and therefore, could not have relied on appellants’ sworn statement to the contrary. Appellees failed to negate that affirmative defense. See Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 364 So.2d 47, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 461 (1979). Hence, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether appellees relied on those representations, which precluded entry of the summary judgment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 505, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9490, 1991 WL 181558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solimine-v-numerica-savings-bank-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack