Burt v. Hudson & Keyse, LLC, 138 So. 3d 1193

H&K (assignee of Bank of America) sued Margaret Burt for money lent/credit extended and account stated, alleging a BOA credit card balance transferred to H&K and seeking around $35,192.22 (complaint alleged $85,192.22).
H&K supported summary judgment with an affidavit of claim, a Statement of Account naming “Margaret Lynn Burt-Hosmer-Crist-Caudill-Brown” at a Hallmark Avenue address, BOA account statements in the name of Margaret L. Hosmer at different addresses, a Bill of Sale for a BOA account in the name Margaret L. Hosmer, and a letter of assignment addressed to Burt-Hosmer-Crist-Caudill-Brow.
Service was effected on “Margaret Burt aka Hosmer-Crist-Caudill-Brow,” and the deputy recorded that Burt denied ever using the surname Hosmer.
Burt filed an affidavit denying the debt, asserting she never received notice of assignment as required by statute, claiming possible mistaken identity with another Margaret Burt, and alleging previous payment and fraud reported to BOA.
The trial court granted summary judgment for H&K on the money-lent and account-stated claims; H&K voluntarily dismissed the breach of contract and unjust enrichment counts after that ruling.
The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo and examined whether factual disputes remained about the proper debtor, receipt of assignment notice, and the amount owing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Identity of debtor (was Burt the account holder?)	H&K: records, bill of sale, account statements and service return identify Burt as debtor.	Burt: disputes use of listed surnames, denies being the account holder, suggests mistaken identity.	Genuine issue of material fact exists; H&K did not conclusively prove identity.
Proof of assignment/notice to debtor	H&K: produced letter addressed to Burt-Hosmer-Crist-Caudill-Brow informing of assignment.	Burt: swore she never received notice; H&K offered no proof of mailing or business mailing practices.	Issue of fact whether notice was mailed/received; summary judgment inappropriate.
Establishing account stated (amount owed)	H&K: account statements and books show balance; implied assent from failure to dispute.	Burt: denied owing amount, denied receiving statements or assignment notice; BOA statements shown do not match amount H&K seeks.	H&K failed to conclusively establish an implicit agreement fixing the amount; factual dispute remains.
Sufficiency of summary-judgment evidence	H&K: documentary evidence and affidavit of claim suffice.	Burt: affidavit creates disputes; lack of mailing proof and identity links.	Court: evidence permits different reasonable inferences; summary judgment reversed and remanded.

Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; nonmoving party favored on inferences)
Laughlin v. Household Bank, Ltd., 969 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (movant must conclusively show no material fact dispute)
McCraney v. Barberi, 677 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (summary judgment proper only when facts crystallized)
Star Lakes Estates Ass’n v. Auerbach, 656 So.2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (proof of mailing creates rebuttable presumption of receipt)
Camerota v. Kaufman, 666 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affidavit denying receipt can create fact issue despite mailing presumption)
F.D.I.C. v. Brodie, 602 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (implied agreement via failure to object requires proof of periodic billing practice)
Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A., N.A., 37 So.3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (account stated requires agreement fixing amount; silence may imply assent with adequate billing practice)
Brake v. State of Florida, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 473 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (proof of mailing requires more than mere address on correspondence)