SHELDON GREENE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAMS ISLAND ASSOCIATES, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
A real estate brokerage firm appealed a directed verdict entered before it presented evidence at trial. The court reversed, holding that directing a verdict before the plaintiff completes presentation of its case violates Florida procedural rules, and remanded for a new trial.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict before plaintiff had presented any evidence. While federal practice and some prior Florida decisions permit directed verdicts before completion of an opposing party's case, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480 provides that a directed verdict may be moved for at the close of evidence offered by the adverse party, and this court has held on several occasions that it is error to direct a verdict before a plaintiff completes presentation of his evidence.
[1] A directed verdict is improperly granted before the plaintiff has completed the presentation of its evidence.
[2] A motion for a directed verdict may be made at the close of evidence offered by the adverse party.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trial court erred in directing a verdict before plaintiff had presented any evidence. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480 (1987), provides that a party may move for a directed verdict at the close of evidence offered by the adverse party.”
Establishes the core holding that directing a verdict before plaintiff presents evidence violates Florida procedural rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheldon Greene and Associates, a real estate brokerage firm, sued Williams Island Associates for breach of contract and quantum meruit arising from al…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 50 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sheldon Greene and Associates appeals from a final judgment entered on a directed verdict. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Sheldon Greene and Associates, a real estate brokerage firm, sued Williams Island Associates for breach of contract, a brokerage commission, and quantum meru-it arising from Williams Island’s alleged nonpayment to Greene of a brokerage commission for locating a management company, Melia, Inc., which Williams Island engaged. The first trial ended in a mistrial. Before retrial of the action, Williams Island moved for summary judgment and to preclude certain testimony at the retrial.
The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and reserved ruling on the motion in limine.
The trial court’s order stated that, if Greene could demonstrate that Williams Island “willfully dropped their contract with Melia, Inc. in order to avoid the payment of a real estate commission to the Plaintiff, this court will allow the damage testimony to go to the jury. Absent such evidence, the damage testimony will not be permitted.” At the outset of the retrial, after opening statements, the trial court asked Greene’s counsel to proffer the evidence he would produce. Greene’s counsel proffered the record of the first trial and, upon questioning by the court, admitted that he had no evidence that Williams Island terminated the Melia contract to avoid paying Greene’s commission.
The trial court then directed a verdict for Williams Island, released the jury, and entered final judgment for Williams Island.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict before plaintiff had presented any evidence. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480 (1987), provides that a party may move for a directed verdict at the close of evidence offered by the adverse party. While our decisions are not entirely consistent, we have held on several occasions that it is error to direct a verdict before a plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence. Porro v. Franco, 448 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited therein; accord Dodge v. Weiss, 191 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Sapp v. Redding, 178 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).
But cfi Wilfork v. Associated Grocers, 343 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“Though, as a matter of law, it is not prima facie error to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant prior to the completion of the plaintiff’s case, Floyd v. Ott, 221 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), we do not believe such practice is proper. This is especially true when the direction of the verdict is based solely upon a plaintiff’s opening statement.” (Citations omitted.)).1
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.2
. We acknowledge conflict with Floyd v. Ott. Practice under the federal directed verdict rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, after which Florida's directed verdict rule was patterned, 6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Millen, 104 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 1958), permits direction of a verdict prior to the conclusion of an opposing party’s case. "Both historically and under Rule 50(a), a motion for a directed verdict can properly be made ... after the opening statement of adverse counsel, if by such statement it is clear that no question for the jury exists_” 5A J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice Para. 50.04, at 50-39 (2d ed. 1989); accord 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure; Civil § 2533, at 584 (1971).
. This reversal is without prejudice to Williams Island's right to renew its motion for summary judgment. It may be, as Greene asserts, that he is entitled to compensation at least on a quantum meruit basis although we do not reach that issue. It would then be incumbent upon Green to offer to the trial court an appropriate damage theory.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.N. and A.N. v. M.F.-A. and J.A., 946 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ce and entered final judgment for appellees. On appeal, appellants argue that it was error to dismiss the case as a matter of law after hearing only opening statements. We agree. In Sheldon Greene and Associates, Inc. v. Williams Island Associates, 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), we reversed and remanded for a new trial where, after opening statements and a proffer by plaintiffs counsel of the evidence he would produce, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. This Court held that “it is erro…
-
Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equipment, 562 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…353 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (holding that the trial judge should not have attempted to determine liability before having a chance' to hear all the testimony appellant had to offer); Sheldon Greene and Assocs., Inc. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990); SJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Cates, 547 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (applying the same concept to the grant of a motion for involuntary dismissal and holding that the trial court could not “j…
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Santiago, 117 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ut a jury has completed the presentation of evidence.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) (2012). Simply put, “it is error to direct a verdict before a plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence.” Sheldon Greene & Assocs. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This Court has held that “[t]he same concept applies to an involuntary dismissal.” A.N. v. M.F.-A, 946 So. 2d 58, 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“By denying appellants the opportunity to complete their case-in-chief, the trial cour…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Beverlee Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1958)
- Johnston v. State, 178 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Dodge v. Joseph Weiss et ux., 191 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Wilfork v. Associated Grocers OF Fla., Inc., 343 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Floyd v. OTT, 221 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Porro v. Franco, 448 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)