From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greene v. Seigle

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 27, 1999
745 So. 2d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding that plaintiff's due process rights were violated when the trial court granted a summary judgment motion eight days after it was filed without providing the plaintiff with a sufficient opportunity to be heard

Summary of this case from Florida Bar v. Rapoport

Opinion

Nos. 98-2490 and 99-0213.

Opinion filed October 27, 1999.

Consolidated appeals and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John A. Miller and Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., Judges; L.T. No. 96-7215 (12).

Seth Honowitz and Scott A. Mager of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan Berlin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Glasser Boreth, Plantation, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Ronald E. Solomon of the Law Offices of Ronald E. Solomon, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee/cross-appellant-Mark Seigle.

Jana Gold Taylor and Charles T. Whitelock of Whitelock Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee/cross-appellant-Ronald Wright.

Catherine Rafferty of Edward M. Kay, P.A., Fort Lauderdale for Appellees/cross-appellants-Jacqueline Sue Turoff, B.J. Bond, Lisa Strachan, On-Target Solutions, Inc.

Patricia A. Burton, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee/cross-appellant-David Steele.


Plaintiff Andrew Greene appeals final summary judgments entered in favor of all defendants. Defendants Mark Seigle and Ronald Wright cross-appeal the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss. We affirm in all respects, except to reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of Wright.

Eight days after Wright filed his motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted it without a hearing or notice to Plaintiff. This violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) and Plaintiff's due process rights and thus requires a reversal. See Mondestin v. Duval Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 500 So.2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard). Accordingly, final summary judgment in favor of Wright is reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings against him. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

GUNTHER, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Greene v. Seigle

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 27, 1999
745 So. 2d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding that plaintiff's due process rights were violated when the trial court granted a summary judgment motion eight days after it was filed without providing the plaintiff with a sufficient opportunity to be heard

Summary of this case from Florida Bar v. Rapoport
Case details for

Greene v. Seigle

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW GREENE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MARK SEIGLE, RONALD WRIGHT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 27, 1999

Citations

745 So. 2d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Occupy Nashville v. Haslam

Thus, “failure to promulgate a rule as contemplated by the UAPA renders the rule void.” Mandela, 978 S.W.2d…

WG Evergreen Woods SH, LLC v. Fares

Several cases have concluded that it is a denial of due process "to deny either party a hearing" when ruling…