Michael Anthony Petrucci v. Phillip Brinson, 179 So. 3d 398

Brinson (plaintiff) sued Petrucci (defendant) for civil theft and breach of contract, alleging Petrucci executed a promissory note for $46,935 and owed additional wages/loans; total damages awarded below exceeded $147,000.
Petrucci answered and asserted seven affirmative defenses; he admitted borrowing $13,150 but disputed the larger amount and denied owing wages.
Brinson moved for summary judgment relying on his affidavit, excerpts of Petrucci’s deposition (Petrucci admitted signing the note without reading it), and Petrucci’s responses to requests for admission.
Neither Petrucci nor his counsel appeared at the summary judgment hearing, and the trial court granted summary final judgment for Brinson.
Petrucci’s counsel later filed a motion for rehearing and opposition, attaching Petrucci’s affidavit asserting no criminal intent, that loans were personal debts, he made some payments, and that he had signed the note relying on Brinson’s representations.
The trial court denied rehearing without considering Petrucci’s affidavit; the First DCA reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying rehearing and refusing to consider new affidavit	Brinson argued no genuine issue of material fact; judgment proper.	Petrucci argued affidavit filed with rehearing raised material issues that would have precluded summary judgment and that counsel’s absence was excusable neglect.	Court held trial court abused its discretion by not considering the affidavit on rehearing and reversed/remanded.
Whether summary judgment was proper on civil theft and damages	Brinson asserted evidence (affidavit, deposition, admissions) established Petrucci intended not to repay and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.	Petrucci disputed intent, amount claimed, and asserted payments and reliance/duress in signing the note.	Court declined to affirm summary judgment because the rehearing affidavit created genuine factual disputes that should have been considered.
Whether counsel’s procedural failings justified denying relief	Brinson implicitly relied on Petrucci’s failure to oppose at hearing.	Petrucci argued counsel’s failure was inadvertent/excusable and courts may rescue parties from lawyer error when rehearing presents material factual disputes.	Court found the circumstances warranted consideration of the affidavit despite counsel’s error; trial court should have opened the judgment under Rule 1.530.

Fernandes v. Boisvert, 659 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversal where affidavit presented on rehearing would have created material fact issue and trial court failed to consider it).
AC Holdings 2006, Inc. v. McCarty, 985 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (reversal where exigent circumstances supported considering affidavit filed on rehearing).
Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (rule 1.530 permits rehearing to prevent injustice from lawyer error; trial court should have reopened judgment).
Fatherly v. Cal. Fed. Bank, FSB, 703 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider sworn allegations on rehearing after counsel’s failure).
Knowles v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 994 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversal where affidavit opposing summary judgment was filed with motion for rehearing).
Olesh v. Greenberg, 978 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversal on similar facts where negligent legal representation prevented presentation of material disputes).