We affirm the final summary judgment entered on a complaint for defamation. The appellants had claimed that the appellee, or the appellee's son at his direction, had written on a postcard advertising an
Even prior to the institution of the suit (which was filed just short of the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations
We conclude that summary judgment was appropriately entered where the appellant failed to show that a disputed issue of material fact remained. The sworn deposition testimony showed that the appellee did not write the language on the postcard — his son did. Nor did he know that his son had done so, thus negating the material issue of fact alleged in the complaint that the appellee had published or caused to be published a defamatory statement. The burden then shifted to the appellant to offer some conflicting evidence. The appellant offered no sworn statements or admissible documents to counter the appellee's evidence. "[T]he party moved against by summary judgment... must come forward with facts contradicting those submitted by the movant and demonstrating a real issue between the parties." Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So.2d 715, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (emphasis added), abrogated on other grounds, Silva v. Hernandez, 612 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1993); see also Page v. Staley, 226 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (approving summary judgment where defendant sued for slander flatly denied under oath making defamatory statements, and plaintiff had no personal knowledge of the acts of slander, as the "[m]ovant is not required to exclude every other inference from possible other evidence that may be available").
We affirm on the remaining issues without further discussion.
WARNER, GROSS, JJ., and SINGHAL, RAAG, Associate Judge, concur.