Carriage Hills Condominium, Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc.
109 So. 3d 329
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Contract dispute: Carriage Hills appeals a summary final judgment in favor of JBH Roofing.
- JBH moved for summary judgment relying on Carriage Hills’ corporate representative’s deposition.
- Trial court struck two Carriage Hills affidavits as conflicting with the corporate representative and granted judgment.
- Carriage Hills submitted affidavits from former president D’Alconzo and treasurer Barona detailing substandard work and double billing.
- Deposition of Carriage Hills’ corporate representative Foley was not properly noticed under Rule 1.310(b)(6) and did not bind Carriage Hills.
- Court reverses striking of affidavits, finds procedural flaws in notice and handling, remanding for further proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could strike the affidavits | Carriage Hills argues affidavits contradicted Foley but should not be stricken | JBH contends affidavits contradicted Foley’s deposition and were properly struck | Striking not allowed without proper criteria; reversal on this issue |
| Whether summary judgment was proper based on Foley’s testimony | Foley’s deposition did not conclusively establish no genuine issue | JBH relied on Foley to show contract existence and damages | Summary judgment improper given flawed notice and evidentiary issues |
| Rule 1.310(b)(6) notice compliance and binding effect | Carriage Hills complied by designating Foley as representative | Notice was defective; Foley not properly designated to bind corporate position | Notice and designation were improper; binding effect not established |
| Scope of the deposition and whether testimony exceeded notice | Foley testified on matters beyond the notice scope | Foley’s statements should bind if within the scope | Testimony exceeded notice; did not bind Carriage Hills |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyde v. Stanley Tools, 107 F.Supp.2d 992 (E.D. La. 2000) (striking affidavit ruled permissible to protect integrity of process)
- Cary v. Keene Corp., 472 So.2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (corporate testimony cannot be repudiated to create a jury issue)
- Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1980) (discrepancies require credible explanation to avoid summary judgment issues)
- R & B Appliance Parts, Inc. v. Amana Co., L.P., 258 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2001) (affidavits cannot be used to contradict prior sworn deposition without justification; safeguard integrity of process)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 203 (E.D. Pa. 2008) ( Rule 30(b)(6) testimony binds corporation but may be contradicted; not conclusive)