Susino v. Estate of Susino

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Susino v. Estate of Susino

544 So. 2d 1058, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1329, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3035, 1989 WL 55957

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1989

DocketNo. 88-0588

StatusPublished

This text of 544 So. 2d 1058 (Susino v. Estate of Susino) 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

Susino v. Estate of Susino, 544 So. 2d 1058, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1329, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3035, 1989 WL 55957 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the appellees, Hilger and Hino, can be individually liable on the specific performance count. We reverse that portion of the final judgment finding Hil-ger and Hino not individually liable on the specific performance count because that count was never litigated at trial. In entering the final judgment, the trial court modified that portion of the previously entered partial summary judgment which found Hilger and Hino individually liable on this count. In our view, at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether Hilger'and Hino could be held individually liable on the specific performance count. Therefore, we also reverse that portion of the partial summary judgment finding Hilger and Hino individually liable on this count.

Since we reverse those portions of the partial summary judgment and the final judgment disposing of this issue, we remand for a trial to determine whether Hil-ger and Hino may be held individually liable on the specific performance count. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and ROBINSON, STEVEN D., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the appellees, Hilger and Hino, can be individually liable on the specific performance count. We reverse that portion of the final judgment finding Hil-ger and Hino not individually liable on the specific performance count because that count was never litigated at trial. In entering the final judgment, the trial court modified that portion of the previously entered partial summary judgment which found Hilger and Hino individually liable on this count. In our view, at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether Hilger'and Hino could be held individually liable on the specific performance count. Therefore, we also reverse that portion of the partial summary judgment finding Hilger and Hino individually liable on this count.

Since we reverse those portions of the partial summary judgment and the final judgment disposing of this issue, we remand for a trial to determine whether Hil-ger and Hino may be held individually liable on the specific performance count. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and ROBINSON, STEVEN D., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 1058, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1329, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3035, 1989 WL 55957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susino-v-estate-of-susino-fladistctapp-1989.