B & H SALES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JEWEL BUILDERS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CENTRAL FLORIDA WATER SYSTEMS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CROW, POPE & LAND OF FLORIDA, INC. AND COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
B & H Sales appeals from a trial court order setting aside a jury verdict in a garnishment proceeding. The court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly vacated the jury's verdict where sufficient evidence supported it.
The trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict. A judgment contrary to a jury verdict may be entered only where no evidence is presented upon which the jury could lawfully have returned its verdict. Here, sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict, and the jury's finding was not inconsistent with the proof presented.
[1] A judgment contrary to a jury verdict may be entered only where no evidence is presented on which the jury could lawfully have returned its verdict.
[2] A jury verdict may be set aside if the evidence presented is insufficient to support it.
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“A judgment contrary to a jury verdict may be entered only where no evidence is presented on which the jury could lawfully have returned its verdict.”
Establishes the legal standard for when a trial court may set aside a jury verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB & H Sales obtained a judgment against Central Florida Water Systems, Inc. and issued a writ of garnishment against Crow, Pope & Land of Florida, Inc…
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 Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order setting aside a jury verdict in a garnishment proceeding. The appellant, B & H Sales, Inc., secured a judgment against Central Florida Water Systems, Inc. Thereafter, a writ of garnishment was issued to Crow, Pope and Land of Florida, Inc. alleging that Crow owed Central Florida sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment. In an amended answer to the garnishment writ Pope admitted the indebtedness. The appellee, Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company, filed a claim pursuant to Section 77.16 of the Florida Statutes, alleging that it had a superior claim to the funds held by Crow. A jury trial was held on Cotton States’ claim which resulted in a verdict in favor of B & H. The trial court then set aside the verdict and entered a judgment for Cotton States. A judgment contrary to a jury verdict may be entered only where no evidence is presented on which the jury could lawfully have returned its verdict. Landry v. Sterling Apartments, Inc., 231 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Here, the disputed issues of fact submitted to the jury concerned the amount and propriety of certain payments made on a construction project. Those issues were submitted to the jury along with proper legal instructions. In his order setting aside the verdict the trial court concluded that only one result could be reached on the basis of the evidence presented. We disagree. The evidence presented consisted largely of the testimony of one witness. On cross examination the testimony of this witness was sufficiently challenged to create a factual dispute on the issues ultimately submitted to the jury. The jury’s verdict is not inconsistent with the proof presented.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed with directions that a judgment be entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc. v. Bruce A. Ryals Enters., Inc., 380 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…e new business to be owned by the father, and funds generated by the new business were the funds placed in the business account nominally the daughter’s; therefore, the funds were subject to garnishment. In B & H Sales, Inc. v. Jewel Builders, Inc., 353 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the garnishee admitted owing money to the judgment debtor. There was no question as to the judgment debtor’s right to the funds, just a question concerning who had a superior right. Our disposition of the directed verdict issue…
Authorities Cited
- Landry v. Sterling Apts., Inc., 231 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)