With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". are due and owing for services rendered. However, the dispute lies over who should be made to pay the fees, appellant or IHR, Inc. In his order granting summary judgment, the trial court based the dismissal on its finding that IHR, Inc. served as a mere paying agent for appellant. However, contrary to such findings, the pleadings, admissions, and affidavits filed in the instant case suggest a material dispute exists over appellant’s personal involvement in the contract. In the instant case, both appellant’s and appellee’s submissions regarding the extent of IHR’s involvement in the employment contract are conclusory. Conclusory statements alone are insufficient to support the grant of motion for summary judgment. See Verchick v. Hecht Invs., Ltd., 924 So.2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the trial court further erred

A: holding that district court properly refused to rely on affidavits to the extent that they contained only legal conclusions
B: holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible
C: holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment
D: holding that a trial court could not rely on two individuals conclusory affidavits proclaiming to be employees of a business
D.