You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Allington, Etc. v. Allington Towers North

Citation: 415 So. 2d 118Docket: 81-272

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 16, 1982; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The District Court of Appeal of Florida considered an appeal regarding a trial court's granting of partial summary judgment in favor of a developer in a slander of title action initiated by a condominium association. The association had filed a lien against unsold units for alleged building defects, which the developer challenged, asserting that the lien was malicious and seeking its removal and damages. The trial court ruled for the developer, but on appeal, the association argued that unresolved factual issues about its intent rendered summary judgment inappropriate. The appellate court evaluated whether actual malice is necessary for slander of title, noting that malice can be presumed from false and damaging statements unless rebutted by demonstrating a privilege, such as acting in good faith. The court concluded that the association's good faith claim introduced a factual dispute concerning malice, thus precluding summary judgment. It emphasized that the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish malice when a privilege is claimed. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment on liability, directing that genuine issues of material fact regarding malice be resolved at trial.

Legal Issues Addressed

Privilege and Burden of Proof in Slander of Title

Application: When a privilege, such as good faith, is asserted, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove malice, thereby precluding summary judgment in the presence of genuine factual disputes.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the association's good faith defense introduces a factual dispute regarding malice, which precludes summary judgment.

Slander of Title and Malice

Application: The court addressed whether actual malice is required to establish liability for slander of title, concluding that malice can be presumed from false and damaging statements unless rebutted by privilege.

Reasoning: The developer maintained that actual malice is not necessary for slander of title, asserting that liability is established by demonstrating that a false statement was communicated to a third party, disparaging the title and causing actual damage.

Summary Judgment and Factual Disputes

Application: The court found that unresolved factual issues regarding the intent of the condominium association precluded the granting of summary judgment on the issue of malice.

Reasoning: The association contended that summary judgment was inappropriate due to unresolved factual issues regarding its intent.