STEWART E. FASON, D/B/A PC SYSTEMS, APPELLANT,
v.
EMPAC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an involuntary dismissal in a contract dispute, holding that the trial court improperly considered defensive matters when ruling on the motion for involuntary dismissal. The court clarified that defenses cannot be weighed against a plaintiff's prima facie case when deciding whether to grant involuntary dismissal.
The trial court erred in granting the motion for involuntary dismissal because it improperly considered defensive matters. Defenses are not to be considered when ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal; if plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the motion must be denied regardless of unproved defensive claims.
[1] A trial court ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal should not consider defensive matters.
[2] Defenses are not properly considered by the trial court when deciding whether an involuntary dismissal is appropriate.
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“Defenses are not to be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal directed at a complaint.”
States the governing legal principle that defenses cannot be weighed in involuntary dismissal motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFason brought a three-count complaint against EMPAC International Corporation. At the close of plaintiff's case on the sole remaining count, the trial…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment appealed followed the trial court’s granting of a motion for involuntary dismissal as to the sole remaining count in what was originally a three-count complaint. The underlying issue was whether appellant, plaintiff below, failed to prove a default by appellee, from which certain consequences would have flowed. We hold that the issue and its consequences were defensive matters which were not properly considered by the trial court when deciding whether an involuntary dismissal was appropriate. Defenses are not to be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal directed at a complaint. See Miami Purveyors, Inc. v. Forte, 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1982). In Forte, the court held that an order of involuntary dismissal should be reversed because the evidence pri-ma facie established that defendant orally agreed he would be liable for the payment of plaintiff’s bills. Id. The court found that at that stage of the nonjury proceedings (close of plaintiffs case) a finding that defendant’s agreement was unenforceable because it was not in writing was precluded. Id. at 331-32. Similarly, in North American Marketing v. Travelers Ins. Co., 405 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the court held that insured presented a prima facie case of “unidentifiable employee dishonesty.” The North American Marketing court found that insurer’s unproved claim that the loss suffered by insured due to “unidentifiable employee dishonesty” was diminished by other facts was not a matter properly considered on insurer’s motion pursuant to the rule governing involuntary dismissals. Id. at 1020.
We therefore reverse and remand for further appropriate proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N. Am. Mktg. Corp., Inc. v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 405 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d 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)