Fason v. Empac International Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fason v. Empac International Corp.

648 So. 2d 1270, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 629, 1995 WL 36203

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1995

DocketNo. 93-2613

StatusPublished

This text of 648 So. 2d 1270 (Fason v. Empac International Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fason v. Empac International Corp., 648 So. 2d 1270, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 629, 1995 WL 36203 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

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, [1271]*1271413 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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, [1271]*1271413 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 So. 2d 1270, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 629, 1995 WL 36203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fason-v-empac-international-corp-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack