From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Senft v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug 1, 2012
95 So. 3d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

No. 4D11–712.

2012-08-1

Dr. Mitchell SENFT, Appellant, v. PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC., Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA026549XXXXMB. Eric Ash of Shochet Law Group, Greenacres, for appellant. Christopher D. Hale of Christopher D. Hale, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA026549XXXXMB.
Eric Ash of Shochet Law Group, Greenacres, for appellant. Christopher D. Hale of Christopher D. Hale, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final summary judgment entered in this contract action, as the appellee failed to conclusively negate the affirmative defenses raised by appellant. See Corya v. Sanders, 76 So.3d 31, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Riverwood Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Litecrete, Inc., 69 So.3d 983, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Moreover, the appellee relied in its affidavit in support of summary judgment on a contract (order form) which was never mentioned or relied upon as part of the contract in its complaint. At the very least, it raises a material issue of fact as to what constituted the contract between the parties. See, e.g., Grumman Ecosystems Corp. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 391 So.2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

WARNER, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Senft v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug 1, 2012
95 So. 3d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

Senft v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Dr. Mitchell SENFT, Appellant, v. PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INC., Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Date published: Aug 1, 2012

Citations

95 So. 3d 398 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)