September 29, 2020

Volume X, Number 273

September 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The Three “Musts” for a Competent Affidavit or Declaration

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal recently issued a decision that serves as a reminder not to take for granted a proposition that most practicing attorneys regularly encounter: a motion for summary judgment must be supported by competent evidence, and an affidavit that does little more than mimic the motion for summary judgment will not suffice.

In Rodriguez v. Avatar Property & Casualty Insurance Co., a plaintiff sued her insurer, alleging that it had breached her homeowners insurance contract by denying coverage for water damage. The trial court granted the insurer’s two separate motions for summary judgment, relying primarily on an affidavit from the insurer’s “duly authorized corporate representative.”

The Second District reversed, concluding that the 37-page affidavit lacked sufficient information to demonstrate that the affiant possessed the competency or personal knowledge to testify on those matters, which ranged from contract interpretation to trade specialties of plumbing and contracting. The affidavit failed to identify her title or corporate duties, did not state that it was made on personal knowledge, and did not set forth her relevant skill set or experience. Instead, it restated “almost verbatim” the motions for summary judgment. Because the affidavit was the pivotal evidence upon which the summary judgment was based, these insufficiencies proved fatal.

The court reminded litigants that supporting affidavits must comply with three “musts” — they must be based on personal knowledge, they must contain facts as would be admissible in evidence, and they must demonstrate the affiant’s competency to testify to the matters stated. And, just as at trial, a factual predicate for the affiant’s testimony is required.


  • There is no shortcut for establishing the necessary facts on summary judgment. Finding the right affiant up front will save time, energy, and resources in the long run.

  • The Second District’s cautionary warning translates to proceedings across jurisdictions, including in federal court, where the rules likewise require that affidavits or declarations be made with personal knowledge, addressing admissible facts, by a competent affiant.

©2011-2020 Carlton Fields, P.A. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 37


About this Author

Dean Morande  Shareholder Carlton Fields West Palm Beach real property litigation, consumer finance, product liability, health care, class actions

Dean Morande has handled hundreds of appeals in a wide range of complex commercial cases. His extensive litigation experience covers a number of substantive practice areas, including real property litigation, consumer finance, product liability, health care, class actions, telecommunications, and corporate litigation. Dean works with trial lawyers throughout all phases of litigation to ensure that any issues that arise are well-positioned for favorable outcomes in both the trial and appellate courts.

Dean is board certified in Appellate Law by The Florida Bar. Prior to joining the...

Rachel Oostendorp Appellate Litigation Attorney

Rachel Oostendorp’s practice focuses on appeals and trial support in state and federal courts. She assists with all aspects of appeals, including early case assessments and evaluations, dispositive motions and appellate briefing, and assisting lawyers inside and outside the firm in preparation for oral argument, including moot court sessions. Rachel's areas of concentration include complex commercial and constitutional litigation, with a focus on the First Amendment, at both the trial and appellate level.

Prior to joining Carlton Fields, Rachel clerked for the Honorable Adalberto Jordan, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Honorable Beth Bloom, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.