248 So. 3d 203
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellees Roberts and Randolph bought penthouse Unit PH-2 in 1998; the developer originally assigned parking spaces 410 and 411 to PH-2 in a written instrument (the Decoplage Assignment).
- Appellees claim Fries (the prior owner) orally re-assigned those two parking spaces to them when they purchased PH-2; they used the spaces for ~13 years but did not record the assignment until March 28, 2011.
- Appellants Suresh and Bina Gidwani purchased Unit 1033 in March 2011; Decoplage’s internal “approval” referenced the same parking spaces as assigned to Unit 1033, though the association does not independently verify assignments.
- A dispute arose over ownership of spaces 410 and 411; Appellees sued for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees, and moved for summary judgment on liability.
- Appellees’ summary-judgment proof relied heavily on an unauthenticated, post-litigation letter purportedly from Fries (the “Fries Letter”), plus testimony and a certificate recording the assignment; Fries was not deposed or sworn.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees and awarded damages and fees; the appellate court reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact exist because Appellees failed to produce competent, authenticated proof of assignment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment appropriately established Appellees’ ownership of parking spaces 410–411 | Appellees: Fries orally assigned the spaces; the Fries Letter and recorded certificate establish their title | Appellants: Fries Letter is unauthenticated and association records/approval create disputing evidence | Reversed — genuine factual disputes exist; movant failed to meet initial burden because key document was unauthenticated |
| Whether unauthenticated documents may be considered on summary judgment | Appellees: attached Fries Letter to affidavit as probative evidence | Appellants: unauthenticated, unsworn documents are incompetent for summary-judgment purposes | Held: Unaudited documents cannot establish absence of material fact; courts may not consider unauthenticated evidence |
| Whether nonmoving party must present a counter-affidavit to defeat summary judgment | Appellees: Appellants offered no counter-affidavit, so judgment should stand | Appellants: burden never shifted because movant failed to establish absence of genuine issue | Held: Burden remains with movant to prove no genuine issue; nonmovant need not file counter-affidavit if movant fails initial showing |
| Whether court may take judicial notice of condominium amendment not in record | Appellees: urged judicial notice of amendment requiring recorded parking assignments | Appellants: amendment was not introduced below and parties lacked notice/opportunity to contest | Held: Court declined to take judicial notice because amendment was not in the record and proper procedures were not followed |
Key Cases Cited
- Redland Ins. Co. v. Cem Site Constructors, Inc., 86 So. 3d 1259 (discussing that movant must establish absence of genuine issue)
- Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (moving party’s duty to produce evidence and nonmovant’s obligation to come forward once burden met)
- Bryson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 75 So. 3d 783 (unauthenticated documents insufficient for summary judgment)
- Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886 (courts may not consider unauthenticated documents on summary judgment)
- Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 698 So. 2d 617 (only competent evidence may be considered on a motion for summary judgment)