Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Bburgett, LLC v. Benfam Holdings, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 6D2025-0157

• Disposition: Reversed

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Reversed

Combined Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA

---

Case No. 6D2025-0157
Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-007893

---

BBURGETT, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

BENFAM HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellee.

---

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Brian S. Sandor, Judge.

March 20, 2026

STARGEL, J.

BBURGETT, LLC, appeals the Final Judgment of Foreclosure, Non-

Homestead, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, BENFAM

HOLDINGS, LLC. Specifically, BBURGETT alleges that the final judgment fails

to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a)1 and that the trial court

1
The rule states, in relevant part, “[T]he court shall state on the record the
reasons for granting or denying the motion.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a).
erred in granting summary judgment when its affirmative defenses created genuine

issues of material fact.

Because the record on appeal includes a transcript from the summary

judgment hearing, and because the trial court failed to detail its specific reasons for

granting summary judgment either orally or in its written order as required by rule

1.510(a),2 we reverse and remand for the limited purpose of having the trial court

enter an order that is compliant with the rule. See Ballard v. Bank of Am., N.A., 365

So. 3d 1219, 1221-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (reversing and remanding for the limited

purpose of having the trial court explain its reasoning as required by rule 1.510(a))

(internal citations omitted).3 “To comply with this requirement, it will not be enough

for the court to make a conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute

2
BBURGETT preserved the issue by timely filing a motion for rehearing in
the trial court. See Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217,
221 n.3 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (“[W]hen an error appears for the first time on the face
of the order, it is well settled that parties can preserve the issue by filing a motion
for rehearing.”); Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
(“[W]here an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order,
a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other
appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal.”).
3
This case is distinguishable from Santiago v. Wilmington Trust, National
Ass’n, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D197, ––– So.3d ––––, 2026 WL 252409 (Fla. 6th DCA
Jan. 30, 2026), where our Court affirmed because the record on appeal did not
include a transcript from the summary judgment hearing and we therefore could not
determine whether the trial court satisfied rule 1.510(a)’s statement-on-the-record
requirement.

2
as to a material fact.” In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 77

(Fla. 2021).

Since the issue of whether the trial court erred in not making specific findings

is dispositive, we do not reach the merits of whether the affirmative defenses raised

create genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur.

Anthony N. Legendre, II, of Law Offices of Legendre & Legendre, PLLC, Maitland,
for Appellant.

Daniel J. Mendez, Sergio L. Mendez, and Daniela C. Pachon, of Law Offices
Mendez & Mendez, P.A., South Miami, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

3