Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Vitelli v. Hagger
Citation: 268 So. 3d 246Docket: Case No. 5D18-2159
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 12, 2019; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Mario Vitelli and Carol Bartholomew, as Trustees of their Revocable Trust, contest a final summary judgment that granted Emil and Caroline Hagger a statutory way of necessity over their property. The Haggers contended that their properties, Parcel A and Parcel B, were separated by Parcel C (owned by Appellants) and that Parcel A was effectively landlocked, necessitating access through Parcel C to reach SE 141st Avenue Road. Appellants denied the Haggers' claims regarding the accessibility of Parcel A and argued that they were not required to provide access and had not been compensated for any easement. They asserted an affirmative defense, claiming an implied easement existed over adjacent lands not involved in the current case. The Haggers sought summary judgment based on their verified complaint and supporting affidavits, with no opposing evidence presented by Appellants. The summary judgment framework requires the moving party to demonstrate the absence of genuine material fact disputes and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, while the trial court must view evidence favorably to the nonmoving party. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, indicating that the Haggers did not meet the required burden. Summary judgment is deemed improper if there is any genuine issue of material fact or even a slight doubt regarding its existence. The moving party bears the initial burden to demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact before the burden shifts to the opposing party. Conclusory and self-serving testimony does not satisfy this burden. In this case, the court found it erroneous to grant summary judgment based solely on the Haggers' verified complaint, which merely echoed statutory language without providing specific details about the use of Parcel A or supporting evidence such as photographs or maps. The verified complaint also failed to address the Appellants' affirmative defense adequately. Although the Haggers claimed the Appellants needed to substantiate their affirmative defense, the opposing party is not required to present evidence until the moving party meets its burden. Since the Haggers did not fulfill their initial obligation, the Appellants were not required to produce opposing evidence. Consequently, the order granting summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Additionally, the trial court improperly awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Haggers, as they did not prove the Appellants acted unreasonably in denying access to the right of way.