In Gennifer Gee v. U.S. Bank National Association, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D 2159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), a recent case decided by the Fifth District Court of Appeals, the Court reiterates the standard and burdens the Bank must meet when it argues a Motion for Summary Judgment. In an excerpt from the decision, the Court states:
A motion for summary judgment must “state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matter of law to be argued….”Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). The burden to conclusively establish the nonexistence of a disputed issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law rests squarely with the movant. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43-44 (Fla. 1966): Bloch v. Berkshire Ins. Co., 585 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The purpose of this rule is “to prevent ‘ambush’ by allowing the non moving party to be prepared for the issues that will be argued at the summary judgment hearing.” City of Cooper City v. Sunshine Wireless Co., 654 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). “It is reversible error to enter summary judgment on a ground not raised with particularity in the motion.” Williams v. Bank of Am. Corp., 927 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Continue reading "The Constraints on Bank at a Motion for Summary Judgment" »