CAPITAL MEDIA, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DONNA J. HAASE AND KATHLEEN A. JONES; HAASE & JONES, ASSOCIATES, INC., D/B/A RAPID COMMERCIAL PRINTING, INC., F/K/A RAPID PRINTING OF PINELLAS COUNTY, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND ROBERT B. TUTTY, 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.
Capital Media appealed the trial court's involuntary dismissal of counts I through IX at the close of plaintiff's case. The appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly weighed evidence and evaluated witness credibility when ruling on the motion, rather than limiting its analysis to whether plaintiff established a prima facie case.
The trial court erred by evaluating witness credibility and weighing evidence on the involuntary dismissal motion. On such a motion in a nonjury trial at the close of plaintiff's case, the court is limited to determining whether plaintiff made a prima facie case and cannot weigh evidence or assess credibility.
[1] A trial court cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal following the presentation of a prima facie case by a plaintiff.
[2] If a plaintiff has submitted competent proof on each element of the cause of action pleaded, a motion for involuntary dismissal must be denied.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“on a motion for involuntary dismissal, made at the close of the plaintiffs case in a nonjury trial, a trial court is limited to determining whether or not the plaintiff has made a prima facie case”
Establishes the proper standard for reviewing involuntary dismissal motions in nonjury trials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCapital Media filed a multi-count complaint against defendants including Donna Haase, Kathleen Jones, and their corporation Haase and Jones, Inc. (whi…
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 Involuntary Dismissal Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Capital Media, Incorporated, (Capital), seeks reversal of the trial court’s order granting an involuntary dismissal of counts I through IX at the close of the plaintiffs case. We reverse because the trial court did more in ruling on the motion than determine whether or not the plaintiff proved a prima facie case.
Capital filed a multi-count complaint against Donna Haase (Haase), Kathleen Jones (Jones), Haase and Jones Associates, Inc., (Haase and Jones, Inc.), d/b/a Rapid Commercial Printing, Inc., f/k/a Rapid Printing of Pinellas County, Inc. (RPPCC) and Robert Tutty (Tutty), alleging, inter alia, replevin and an action for damages on a promissory note, security agreement, personal guarantee, and a hypothecation agreement. Tutty was the sole shareholder and individual guarantor of the corporate debt of RPPCC. The individual defendants Haase and Jones are the daughters of Tutty, and both were directors, officers and employees of RPPCC for its entire active life. Haase and Jones, Inc. is the alleged corporate transferee of the assets and the business of RPPCC and is wholly owned by Haase and Jones. The new corporation, Haase and Jones, Inc., was formed the same month RPPCC ceased business.
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
The trial court treated the motion as a motion for involuntary dismissal. The court then granted the motion and in the final judgment on counts I through IX stated specifically that he had considered the credibility of witnesses and weighed the evidence in making the determination to grant the involuntary dismissal. The appellant argues and we agree that the trial court erred in both evaluating the credibility of witnesses and weighing the evidence on a motion for involuntary dismissal. This court and others have consistently held that on a motion for involuntary dismissal, made at the close of the plaintiffs case in a nonjury trial, a trial court is limited to determining whether or not the plaintiff has made a prima facie case. Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1972) and State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The court in making such a determination can neither weigh the evidence nor consider the credibility of witnesses. Saporito v. Madras, 576 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Since the trial court in this instance did not limit itself to determining if the plaintiff made a prima facie case, we reverse the final judgment and remand for a new trial.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
MAY v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…e law the party seeking affirmative relief has shown no right to relief.” When confronted with a motion for involuntary dismissal, the trial court must determine whether or not the plaintiff has made a prima facie case. Capital Media, Inc. v. Haase, 639 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). May’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 r…
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Kummer, 195 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…issal. Day v. Amini, 550 So. 2d 169, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (citation omitted). A trial court “can neither weigh the evidence nor consider the credibility of witnesses” when deciding a motion for involuntary dismissal. Capital Media, Inc. v. Haase, 639 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Here, the circuit court’s order was plainly based upon a reliability determination concerning the weight, believability, and merit of conflicting evidence. While the court, sitting as the finder of fact, could appropriately…
-
Hobbs v. Weinkauf, 940 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…dence adduced by the Hobbses at trial, we conclude that the Hobbses made a prima facie case against Grenelefe under count IV. The trial court therefore erred in granting Grenelefe’s motion for involuntary dismissal. See Capital Media, Inc. v. Haase, 639 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“This court and others have consistently held that on a motion for involuntary dismissal, made at the close of plaintiffs case in a nonjury trial, a trial court is limited to determining whether or not the plaintiff has made…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Arman Saporito v. Madras, 576 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- State v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)