Stone v. Lingerfeldt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stone v. Lingerfeldt

330 So. 2d 40, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14092

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 330 So. 2d 40 (Stone v. Lingerfeldt) 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

Stone v. Lingerfeldt, 330 So. 2d 40, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14092 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs of the parties we are of the opinion that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the rights and liabilities of the parties under the written pre-incorporation agreement previously entered into by and between the parties. The written instrument in question contains provisions which are ambiguous (see paragraphs 6 and 11 of said agreement) casting doubt upon the intent of the parties to this instrument the determination of which intent must be made by the trier of fact and not by way of summary disposition. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 856; cf. Healy v. Atwater, Fla.App. 1972, 269 So.2d 753. See also Morton v. Morton, Fla.App.1975, 307 So.2d 835; Royal American Rlty. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Tr. Co., Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 336.

Accordingly, the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs of the parties we are of the opinion that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the rights and liabilities of the parties under the written pre-incorporation agreement previously entered into by and between the parties. The written instrument in question contains provisions which are ambiguous (see paragraphs 6 and 11 of said agreement) casting doubt upon the intent of the parties to this instrument the determination of which intent must be made by the trier of fact and not by way of summary disposition. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 856; cf. Healy v. Atwater, Fla.App. 1972, 269 So.2d 753. See also Morton v. Morton, Fla.App.1975, 307 So.2d 835; Royal American Rlty. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Tr. Co., Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 336.

Accordingly, the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 40, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-lingerfeldt-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack