SEAROCK, INC., D/B/A ALLIED MARINE, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD VOSE BABCOCK, 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 court held that a directed verdict cannot be granted before the defendant has completed its case-in-chief.
Babcock sued Searock for breach of an escrow agreement. At the conclusion of Babcock's case, the trial court granted Babcock's motion for a directed v…
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 Breach Of Escrow Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Searock Inc., d/b/a Allied Marine, appeals an adverse final judgment on directed verdict in favor of appellee, Edward Vose Babcock. We reverse.
Babcock brought suit against Searock for breach of an escrow agreement in connection with a failed purchase/sale transaction. At the conclusion of Babcock’s case-in-chief, both parties filed motions for directed verdict. The trial court granted plaintiff Bab-cock’s motion.
Simply, the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for Babcock and in depriving Searock of the ability to present its case. Precedent fails to support the granting of a directed verdict before the defendant has had an opportunity to present its case. To the contrary, Florida jurisprudence clearly mandates that “a party may not obtain a directed verdict prior to the time that the party moved against has completed his case-in-chief, since to do so would constitute a denial of due process of law.” Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equipment, 562 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1991); see 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); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edelman v. Breed, 836 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ct Court of Appeal reversed the order of the Commis [*1095] sion insofar as it made findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of just cause for dismissal without permitting the Department to present its ease. In Searock, Inc. v. Babcock, 667 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the plaintiff, Bab-cock, and the defendant, Searock, at the conclusion of the plaintiffs case-in-chief, both, as here, filed motions for directed verdict. The trial court, as it did in this case, granted the plaintiffs motion. Th…
-
A.L. Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church, 784 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…dict before the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence,” because the directed verdict rule contemplates that the movant will move for directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by the adverse party.); Searock v. Babcock, 667 So. 2d 853, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[T]he [*1233] trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for [plaintiff] and in depriving [defendant] of the ability to present its case.... ‘[Doing] so would constitute a denial of due process of law.’ ”); Trio Towin…
-
Claridge H, LLC v. Claridge Hotel, LC, 66 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…giving the defendant any opportunity to present its case— was error. Numerous cases hold that a directed verdict cannot be entered until each party has an opportunity to present relevant evidence in its case in chief. See, e.g., Searock v. Babcock, 667 So. 2d 853, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[T]he trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for [plaintiff] and in depriving [defendant] of the ability to present its case.... ‘[Doing] so would constitute a denial of due process of law.’ ”); Sheldon Greene & A…
Authorities Cited
- Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equipment, 562 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)