STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF NERISSA LEIGHTON WILLIAMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES RICHARD THIBODEAUX, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court's judgment dismissing a paternity and support action. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge erred by weighing evidence and finding the plaintiff's witness not credible when ruling on an involuntary dismissal motion following the plaintiff's case-in-chief, which violated the procedural rule that a judge can only determine whether a prima facie case was established.
A trial judge cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations when ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal; the judge may only determine whether the plaintiff has submitted a prima facie case with competent proof on each element of the cause of action. The trial court erred by weighing evidence and finding Ms. Williams's testimony not credible, and therefore the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
[1] In a nonjury trial, a defendant seeking a judgment in their favor after the plaintiff rests must file a motion for involuntary dismissal.
[2] A trial court cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal after the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a defendant's rule 1.420(b) motion for involuntary dismissal following the presentation of a prima facie case by a plaintiff.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural rule that governs involuntary dismissal motions and prohibits judges from weighing evidence at this stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida HRS, on behalf of Nerissa Leighton Williams, filed a paternity action against Charles Richard Thibodeaux. Ms. Williams testified …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Support cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellants, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and Nerissa Leighton Williams challenge a final judgment entered in a paternity action. We find that the trial court erred by entering a judgment in favor of the appellee, Charles Richard Thibodeaux, at the conclusion of the appellants’ case-in-chief and, accordingly, reverse.
HRS, on the behalf of Nerissa Leighton Williams, filed a paternity and support action against the appellee. The appellee filed an answer denying the material allegations of the appellants’ complaint. During a nonjury trial, Ms. Williams testified that she was the mother of the child in question and that she had sexual intercourse with the appellee on a fairly regular basis from October 1984 until January 1985. She discovered that she was pregnant in December 1984, and the child was born on August 17, 1985. She testified further that she did not have sexual intercourse with any other men for several months before she met the appellee and had sexual intercourse with no one other than him from October 1984 until January 1985. Immediately after the appellants rested their case-in-chief, the court, without any motion from the appellee, dismissed the case. The final judgment stated that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof and that the testimony of Ms. Williams was not credible. This timely appeal followed.
In a nonjury trial, the proper procedure to be followed by a defendant in order to obtain a judgment in his favor following the presentation of the plaintiff’s case is a motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b). In this case, since the defendant did not put on any evidence, nor rest his case, and did not move for an involuntary dismissal, we must assume that the court was dismissing the action on its own motion.
A trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a defendant’s rule 1.420(b) motion for involuntary dismissal following the presentation of a prima facie case by a plaintiff. Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1972). The court should only determine if the plaintiff has submitted a prima facie case. If it is determined that the plaintiff has submitted competent proof on each element of the cause of action pleaded, a motion for involuntary dismissal must be denied. Murphy v. Community Centers Corp., 393 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this case, Ms. Williams’s testimony established a prima facie case. See Pryor v. James, 377 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
As mentioned above, the final judgment contained findings that Ms. Williams’s testimony was not credible and that the appel lants had failed to meet their burden proof. To reach these conclusions, the court had to weight the evidence, and in doing so it erred. Tillman; Murphy. See also Sea Tower Apartments, Inc. v. Century Nat’l Bank, 406 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Service Facilities Corp. v. Lanier, 371 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Buchanan Constr., Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 308 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
We also must reject any contention that if an error occurred, it was harmless because the appellee might have rested his case without presenting any evidence. To apply a harmless error test to the absolute rule laid down in Tillman that a trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal would effectively abrogate the rule. Miami Purveyors, Inc. v. Forte, 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial. See Miami Purveyors, Inc. Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAY v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…y’s motion for involuntary dismissal could only have been denied if the court found that the bank presented competent substantial evidence to establish a prima facie case. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Sews, ex rel. Williams v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243,1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). A party seeking to foreclose on a note and mortgage must prove that it has standing to do so. To have standing to foreclose, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it holds the note and mortgage in question. See Khan v. Bank o…
-
Arman Saporito v. Madras, 576 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…established a pri-ma facie case. At this stage the trial court is precluded from weighing the evidence or adjudging its credibility. Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1972); State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Vance v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Saporito’s own testimony established a prima facie case that he lost revenue on the motel due to the lis pendens; his testimony further establ…
-
Ruck Bros. Brick, Inc. v. Kellogg & Kimsey, Inc., 668 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…pported by the record. A trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a party’s rule 1.420(b) motion for involuntary dismissal after the presentation of the plaintiffs prima facie case. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Sens, v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). If the plaintiff has submitted competent proof of each element of the cause of action pleaded, an involuntary dismissal is inappropriate. Id. In addition to presenting clear evidence as to the first two elements of unjust enrichm…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Easter Mae Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1972)
- SEA Tower Apts., Inc. v. Century Nat'l Bank, 406 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Serv. Facilities Corp. v. Lanier, 371 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Howell v. Gould, 308 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Buchanan Constr., Inc. v. The City OF Tallahassee, 308 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Murphy v. Cmty. Ctrs. Corp., 393 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Marks v. Water-Boggan Int'l, Inc., 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Miami Purveyors, Inc. v. Forte, 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Pryor v. James, 377 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)