Abundant Living Citi Church, Inc. v. Abundant Living Ministries, Inc.
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3104
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Owner (Abundant Living Ministries, Inc.) sued to eject Church (Abundant Living Citi Church, Inc.) from Owner’s Miami property; Church counterclaimed alleging an oral contract to sell the property and sought damages, specific performance, and unjust enrichment for improvements.
- Owner moved, one week after trial was set, to compel surrender of the premises; the motion contained no affidavits, record citations, or detailed legal argument addressing Church’s verified counterclaims or statute-of-frauds defenses.
- The trial court held a five-minute motion-calendar hearing and entered an order (Nov. 23, 2016) ejecting Church; the order concluded any oral contract would violate the statute of frauds but expressly did not adjudicate Church’s partial-performance/gift exceptions.
- The appellate majority treated the ejectment order as the functional equivalent of summary judgment because it disposed of Owner’s claim and Church’s contract claims, and reviewed it de novo.
- The majority reversed, holding the trial court improperly entered de facto summary judgment without compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (no proper motion, no citation of record evidence, no affidavits, and no particularized grounds), and remanded for proper proceedings.
- A dissent would have affirmed dismissal on the merits, reasoning Church’s counterclaim failed to plead a definite, enforceable oral contract (essential terms—price and financing—were indefinite; agreement-to-agree), thereby precluding specific performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owner) | Defendant's Argument (Church) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ejectment order is reviewable as summary judgment | Owner sought ejectment and effectively treated motion as sufficient to remove Church | Church argued verified pleadings raised genuine issues (oral contract, partial performance, consideration, improvements) | Court: Treat order as de facto summary judgment and review de novo; reversed because movant failed Rule 1.510(c) requirements |
| Whether Owner’s motion satisfied summary judgment procedural requirements | Owner argued relief was warranted because it contracted to sell the property to a third party | Church argued Owner’s motion lacked record citations, affidavits, and did not challenge Church’s verified claims | Held: Owner’s motion was conclusory and insufficient under Rule 1.510(c); movant must identify record evidence disproving opponent |
| Whether the statute of frauds barred Church’s contract claims as a matter of law | Owner maintained any oral contract would violate Florida’s statute of frauds | Church asserted exceptions (partial performance/gift) and alleged payment, improvements, and reliance | Held: Trial court’s brief statutory ruling (without resolving partial-performance defenses) was improper as a basis for dispositive relief absent proper summary-judgment process |
| Whether the counterclaims failed to state an enforceable oral contract | Owner (in dissent) argued the counterclaim lacked essential, definite terms (price/financing) | Church alleged an oral agreement, later a $400,000 offer accepted, performance, and reliance | Dissent: Would affirm dismissal because pleadings show an agreement-to-agree and indefinite essential terms; majority did not rule on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment; de novo review applies)
- Fouts v. Bowling, 596 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (motion in limine cannot be used as an unnoticed vehicle for summary judgment)
- Lombard v. Exec. Elevator Serv., 545 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (pretrial procedures cannot substitute for summary-judgment notice and process)
- Alfre Marble Corp. v. Twin Stone Designs & Installations, Inc., 44 So.3d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (movant bears burden of identifying record facts that conclusively prove entitlement to summary judgment)
- Kendall Commercial Assocs., LLC v. Drakes, LLC, 163 So.3d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (summary judgment improper without notice or when relief is unpled)
- Schrank v. Pearlman, 683 So.2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (summary judgment cannot be based on unsworn proof)
- Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (an order striking an entire claim is equivalent to dismissal and is final)
- de Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church, 953 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (specific-performance claims for real property require clear, definite, and certain proof of contract)