Involuntary Dismissal
This article provides a brief overview of the involuntary dismissal of civil actions under Florida law. Judges frequently misapply this doctrine, which leads to an appeal.
“A motion for involuntary dismissal should be granted only ‘when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a [fact finder] could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.’” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Silva, 239 So. 3d 782, 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quotation omitted).
When a party raises a motion for involuntary dismissal in a nonjury trial “the movant admits the truth of all facts in evidence and every reasonable conclusion or inference based thereon favorable to the non-moving party. Where the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case and different conclusions or inferences can be drawn from the evidence, the trial judge should not grant a motion for involuntary dismissal.”
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Kummer, 195 So. 3d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added). “A trial court ‘can neither weigh the evidence nor consider the credibility of witnesses’ when deciding a motion for involuntary dismissal.” Id. (quotation omitted).
“A motion for involuntary dismissal under … Rule … 1.420(b) in a non-jury trial can be equated to a motion for directed verdict in a jury trial.” Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 137 So. 3d at 563. “When an appellate court reviews the grant of a motion for involuntary dismissal, it must view the evidence and all inferences of fact in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. at 563–64 (quotation omitted).
Selected Cases
In Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Kummer, 195 So. 3d at 1174, a plaintiff sought review of an order involuntarily dismissing its foreclosure complaint. The issue of plaintiff’s standing to foreclose “was contested throughout the litigation and was the principal focus of the trial.” Id. The testimony and documentary evidence established that defendant’s loan was previously transferred to the trust from the [FDIC] and the plaintiff, as the trust’s trustee, brought the foreclosure action on the trust’s behalf. Id. After the close of the defendant’s case, the court granted his motion for involuntary dismissal. Id. In granting the motion, the court determined that the plaintiff had not proven its standing based on its view of the evidence presented at trial. Id.
The court’s written order found, “[t]he notary stamp on the Assignment of Mortgage [the “AOM”] bears an expiration date more than four years from the date of the document’s execution.” Deutsche Bank, 195 So. 3d at 1174. “The AOM executed 5 years after the closing of the Trust raises uncertainty as to when the Plaintiff acquired the Note.” Id. “The involvement of the FDIC as receiver … contradicts Plaintiff’s evidence as to when the Plaintiff acquired the Note.” Id. “The Court does not find the AOM persuasive to establish that the FDIC assigned this Note and this Mortgage to this Trust.” Id. “The Court is not satisfied that Plaintiff proved that the subject matter loan was a part of the Trust at the date of closing.” Id. at 1175.
On appeal, the Second District noted, “the circuit court’s order was plainly based upon a reliability determination concerning the weight, believability, and merit of conflicting evidence.” Deutsche Bank, 195 So. 3d at 1175. “While the court, sitting as the finder of fact, could appropriately consider any uncertainty, contradiction, or persuasiveness in the evidence when rendering its judgment, that kind of comparative analysis had no place in the context of a motion for involuntary dismissal.” Id. “Deutsche Bank presented more than a prima facie case.” Id. (citation omitted). “Its complaint should not have been involuntarily dismissed at trial.” Id.
In Cap. Media v. Haase, 639 So. 2d 632, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), a plaintiff filed a complaint for replevin and damages on a promissory note, security agreement, personal guarantee, and a hypothecation agreement. The defendants moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case. Id. “The trial court treated the motion as a motion for involuntary dismissal.” Id.
“The court then granted the motion and in the final judgment … stated specifically that he had considered the credibility of witnesses and weighed the evidence in making the determination to grant the involuntary dismissal.” Cap. Media, 639 So. 2d at 632. “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.” Id. (emphasis added).