Green v. Green, No. 5D22-430 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 28, 2022), is a short per curiam opinion with a sharp summary judgment due process lesson: a trial court cannot grant summary judgment on a ground the movant never raised. Cox Law, PLLC tracks Florida appellate decisions like this one because they shape how motions get drafted, argued, and preserved in the trial courts every day.
Facts
Richard B. Green and Raymond M. Green were parties to litigation with Margaret Green, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Quentin L. Green, arising out of a Seminole County probate matter (L.T. Case No. 2017-CP-001518). Margaret moved for partial summary judgment on a defined issue. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in her favor, but its ruling rested on an issue Margaret had not raised in her motion. Richard and Raymond appealed, arguing that the ruling violated their summary judgment due process rights.
Issue
Whether a trial court may grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the moving party’s motion, or whether doing so violates the non-movant’s due process rights and the procedure governing summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510.
Rationale: Why Summary Judgment Due Process Matters
The Fifth District agreed with Appellants. The trial court violated both their due process rights and proper summary judgment procedure by ruling on an issue not presented in Appellee’s motion for partial summary judgment. Judges Evander, Cohen, and Traver concurred in the per curiam decision.
The summary judgment due process principle is simple. The motion frames the issues. The non-movant is entitled to notice of the specific grounds asserted and a fair opportunity to marshal record evidence and legal argument against them. When a court reaches beyond the motion and decides an unpleaded ground, the non-movant never had that opportunity, and the resulting order cannot stand no matter how the merits would shake out.
The court expressly offered no opinion on the merits of the trial court’s ruling. The reversal rests entirely on the procedural defect. That means the same result could be reached on remand if the ground is properly raised, briefed, and heard. What the trial court could not do was skip the notice step and rule anyway.
Holding
Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the order granting partial summary judgment. The summary judgment due process error was dispositive on appeal without any review of the underlying merits.
Practice Points
For the movant: the motion defines the battlefield. If you want the court to rule on a ground, put it in the motion with the supporting record citations Rule 1.510(c) requires. A court that reaches beyond the motion invites reversal even if it got the answer right, so a favorable ruling on an unpleaded ground is a hollow victory that costs a year and an appeal.
For the non-movant: preserve the objection. If the court signals at the hearing that it is considering a ground outside the motion, object on the record and ask for an opportunity to respond. Renew the point in a motion for rehearing so the summary judgment due process argument is clean and unambiguous on appeal.
For everyone: the same notice principle reaches beyond Rule 1.510. Florida appellate courts regularly reverse orders that grant relief no party requested, whether on a motion to dismiss, a motion for sanctions, or a post-judgment motion. Green v. Green is a compact reminder that summary judgment due process is measured by what was actually noticed and argued, not by what the court thought was the better result.
Questions about a summary judgment ruling or an appeal in the Tampa Bay area or elsewhere in Florida? Call Cox Law, PLLC at 813-685-8600 or request a consultation.
The court opinion can be found here: Read the full opinion — Fifth District Court of Appeal (PDF)