TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arlen Realty, Inc. v. PENN MUTUAL LIFE INS.

Arlen Realty, Inc. v. Penn Mut. Life INS., 386 So. 2d 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 18, 1980
Docket
Nos. SS-401, SS-425
Judges
Wentworth
Citations
386 So. 2d 8861980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17347

Opinion

386 So.2d 886 (1980)

ARLEN REALTY, INC., et al., Appellants,

v.

The PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Nos. SS-401, SS-425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 18, 1980.

John D. Milton, Jr. of Martin, Ade, Birchfield & Johnson, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Robert T. Hyde, Jr., Jacksonville, of Broad & Cassel, Bay Harbor Island, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants seek review of a mortgage foreclosure by a summary judgment which we affirm. Appellants allege, among other points, that appellee has not established the predecessor in title's ownership and possession of the subject property at the time of transfer to appellee.

Upon motion for summary judgment it is the movant's burden to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, 175 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1965). In the present case the predecessor in title, joined as a party defendant, admitted in a responsive pleading his prior ownership and possession of the subject property. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) provides that, upon motion for summary judgment, the trial court may consider the pleadings in determining whether any genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Gard, Fla. Evidence, Vol. 1 (1980), Comment to Rule 10:12, suggests that admissions by a predecessor in title are generally admissible against a subsequent grantee.

Appellants did not respond to appellee's motion for summary judgment and have not affirmatively challenged the predecessor in title's ownership and possession of the subject property. Although the predecessor in title no longer held any interest in the property at the time he admitted his prior ownership and possession, in the circumstances of this case his admission was properly considered, upon motion for summary *887 judgment, as against his co-defendants, the appellants.

The order appealed is AFFIRMED.

McCORD, J., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1982: 21983: 11984: 219822026peak 1982 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Siegel410 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  2. Dutilly v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICES450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
  3. Parker v. Dinsmore Company443 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
  4. Laderman v. Ceramo, Inc.450 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
  5. Carthy v. Simon413 So. 2d 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Laderman v. Ceramo, Inc.450 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
  2. Dutilly v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICES450 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
  3. Parker v. Dinsmore Company443 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
  4. Carthy v. Simon413 So. 2d 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  5. Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Siegel410 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965) 119

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list