Valderrama v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES

972 So. 2d 239, 2007 WL 4409625
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 19, 2007
Docket3D07-1324
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 972 So. 2d 239 (Valderrama v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES) 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
Valderrama v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, 972 So. 2d 239, 2007 WL 4409625 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

972 So.2d 239 (2007)

Carlos A. VALDERRAMA and Leonor I. Valderrama, Appellants,
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D07-1324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 19, 2007.

J. Wil Morris, for appellants.

Jason S. Dragutsky, for appellee.

Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC ("Portfolio"), filed this action against appellants, Carlos A. Valderrama and Leonor I. Valderrama, as an owner and holder of a debt assigned from the original lender. After appellants filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint, Portfolio filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of its position, Portfolio filed an affidavit attesting to appellants' debt in the amount of $17,243.44 which was owed to Portfolio as assignor of the debt.

Carlos Valderrama then filed a conclusory affidavit (the "Appellants' Affidavit") on behalf of both appellants, but sworn only by him, which stated they have no agreement with Portfolio and were not indebted to Portfolio.

The circuit court ultimately granted Portfolio's motion and entered a final summary judgment against the defendants. We agree that the Appellants' Affidavit raises no issues of material fact. "A movant for summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. But once he tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue." Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979). Given that the defendants have raised no genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment was proper.

Affirmed.

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

Related

HORACIO SEQUEIRA v. GATE SAFE INC.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
Gidwani v. Roberts
248 So. 3d 203 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Co.
225 So. 3d 974 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc.
65 So. 3d 1087 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
K.E.L. Title Insurance Agency, Inc. v. CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc.
58 So. 3d 369 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Arce v. Wackenhut Corp.
40 So. 3d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
972 So. 2d 239, 2007 WL 4409625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valderrama-v-portfolio-recovery-associates-fladistctapp-2007.