Court Opinion

ID: 9895689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 15:04:22.690389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:32.366923
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                              State of Florida

                      Opinion filed November 8, 2023.
      Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                           ________________

                            No. 3D22-2150
                      Lower Tribunal No. 18-21333
                         ________________

                Carmen Rita Perez Pellerano, et al.,
                                Appellants,

                                    vs.

                     Luis Alvarez Renta, et al.,
                                Appellees.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina
Beovides, Judge.

    Vazquez & Associates, and Steven B. Herzberg, for appellants.

    Karen B. Parker, P.A., and Karen B. Parker, for appellees.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     EMAS, J.
      Appellants, Carmen Rita Perez Pellerano and 3511 Alhambra, LLC

(the defendants below), appeal the trial court’s amended final summary

judgment entered in favor of Luis Alvarez Renta and Ines Maria Alvarez

Perez (the plaintiffs below) on plaintiffs’ quiet title action on property located

in Coral Gables.

      Upon our de novo review, Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach,

L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000), plaintiffs, as the movants seeking

summary judgment on their claim, met their burden to “show[] that there is

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law,” see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a), 1 and appellants

thereafter failed to meet their corresponding burden to come forward with an

affidavit or other proof to show the existence of a genuine dispute as to a

material fact, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)-(e). We therefore hold that the trial

court properly entered final summary judgment, and affirm. See Romero v.

Midland Funding, LLC, 358 So. 3d 806, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Under the

newly amended rule, summary judgment is appropriate when ‘the evidence

1
  Because the trial court adjudicated this motion after May 1, 2021, the
recently-adopted summary judgment rule 1.510 applied. See In re
Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 77
(Fla. 2021) (“New rule 1.510 takes effect on May 1, 2021. This means that
the new rule must govern the adjudication of any summary judgment motion
decided on or after that date, including in pending cases”).

                                        2
is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving

party.’ In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 75 (Fla. 2021)

(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505,

91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). When seeking summary judgment, the moving party

must identify ‘each claim or defense—for the part of each claim or defense—

on which summary judgment is sought.’ Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a). Once the

party moving for summary judgment satisfies this initial burden, the burden

then shifts to the nonmoving party to come forward with evidence

demonstrating that a genuine dispute of material fact exists. See Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)

(noting that the nonmoving party must ‘go beyond the pleadings and by her

own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial’) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56))”); Mane FL Corp. v. Beckham,

355 So. 3d 418, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“The ‘mere existence of a scintilla

of evidence’ is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.”) (quoting Liberty

Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252). See also Ibarra v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350

So. 3d 465, 467-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Under the new summary judgment

rule, ‘[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe

                                      3
it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on

a motion for summary judgment.’”) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,

380 (2007)); Garbark v. Gayle, 312 So. 3d 1286, 1288-89 (Fla.1st DCA 2021)

(distinguishing acceptable “self-serving” affidavits based on personal

knowledge from those framed solely in terms of conclusions of law).

      Affirmed.

                                       4