Share on Facebook
Share on X
Share on LinkedIn
By Zachary Pearlman
Senior Law Clerk

In Shassian v. Riverwalk Park, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2384 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025), both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment over whether $1 million paid to the defendants was a loan with interest or an equity investment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, noting that both parties wanted the court to resolve it on the papers.

The Sixth DCA reversed. Even when both sides move for summary judgment, a court must still determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Cross-motions aren’t a stipulation that facts are undisputed; they’re just competing arguments that, on each movant’s view, the movant should win as a matter of law. Where the record supports two plausible fact stories—loan vs. investment—summary judgment is improper.

Practice pointers

  • Don’t assume cross-motions will “force” a ruling. If evidentiary conflicts remain (documents, emails, course-of-dealing), the case goes to trial.
  • When opposing MSJ, pinpoint the dispute (who said what/when, how the funds were booked, whether interest accrued, how distributions were treated).
  • When moving for MSJ, neutralize the dispute with undisputed materials (authenticated ledgers, admissions, uncontroverted affidavits) rather than argument alone.

Takeaway: Cross-motions aren’t a shortcut to judgment. If a reasonable factfinder could read the money as loan or investment, the “crucible of trial” awaits.

We frame and oppose summary judgment with the record in mind – not wishful thinking. Wrestling with cross-motions or a murky fact record? Contact our team to get a winning MSJ plan (or a clean denial).

* * * * * * * * * *

THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.

About the Author

Zachary Pearlman, originally from Rockland County, New York, earned his Bachelor’s in American Studies with a focus on the Colonial Era from Ramapo College of New Jersey and interned in the Chambers of Hon. Sandra Sciortino at the New York Supreme Court, Orange County. Currently a 3L at Ave Maria School of Law, he holds a Rewarding Excellence Full Tuition Scholarship, serves as the Managing Editor of the Law Review, and received the Spring 2024 CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Trial Advocacy. Additionally, he is the president of the Saint Thomas More Society, Vice President of the Legion of Mary, and enjoys reading, watching movies, exercising, and bible study.