Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church
Decision Date | 26 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1D00-1863.,1D00-1863. |
Parties | A.L. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. SALEM FREE WILL BAPTIST CHURCH, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sharon L. Ray, Marianna, for Appellant.
J. Shad Redmon of Bondurant & Fuqua, P. A., Marianna, for Appellee.
In this case, the trial judge committed a procedural error by granting a directed verdict for the plaintiff at the close of plaintiff's case. Numerous cases find that a violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480, and even of due process, occurs where a party moves for and obtains a directed verdict before the time that the party moved against has completed its case in chief. See, e.g., Dep't of HRS v. Marlow, 448 So.2d 1106, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
( ); Dodge v. Weiss, 191 So.2d 71, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) ( ); Sapp v. Redding, 178 So.2d 204, 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) ( ); Searock v. Babcock, 667 So.2d 853, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) () ; Trio Towing Serv., Inc. v. Murrell, 325 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) ( ); Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equip., 562 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (); Carmichael v. Shelley Tractor & Equip. Co., 300 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) () . Appellee has conceded error. We reject appellee's concession and affirm because appellant waived entitlement to the normal procedure.
This action arises out of an oral agreement between appellant A.L. Williams and appellee Salem Free Will Baptist Church to swap two parcels of property. Williams was to take possession of some of the Church's property located on the west side of the Church, and the Church was to take some of Williams' property located on the south side of the Church. Apparently, pursuant to the oral agreement, Williams cleared the land on the west side of the Church in 1995 and built a fruit stand on that property. The Church, however, never took possession of the Williams' property on the south side of the Church. Williams assured the Church that a deed to that property was coming, but that the process had been held up by some "environmental people."
The Church took no further action until 1997 when Williams began to dig a canal in conjunction with the improvement of other property he owned adjacent to the Church. Out of concern for the value of its property, the Church approached Williams about a modification of the original oral agreement. The Church and Williams were unable to reach any sort of a modification and Williams still did not deliver a deed to the Church. The Church then commenced this ejectment proceeding against Williams. Williams responded with a counterclaim for betterment of the property he had occupied pursuant to the oral agreement.
The foregoing facts were set out by counsel for the Church in opening statement at the beginning of a non-jury trial. Counsel for Williams made a very brief opening statement in which she agreed that appellee's counsel "has reflected where we are today." Williams' counsel then reminded the court that a counter-claim for betterment had been filed and noted "the case law basically stipulates that any consideration of that would have to be after a ruling on the ejectment." The Church then proceeded to put on witnesses to prove up its claim for ejectment.
Things got off track when, at the conclusion of its own case in chief, the Church moved for a directed verdict, pointing out that Williams remained on property owned by the Church. In response to the motion, defense counsel made no mention of procedural rights, but simply stated, The court then found from the undisputed testimony that plaintiff would be entitled to ejectment. Without missing a beat, the court and counsel began discussing the logistics of scheduling a hearing on Williams' betterment claim. Williams filed no motion for rehearing directed toward...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC
...class certification."However, Tropical Trailer had notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church , 784 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ("The benchmarks of procedural due process are notice of hearing and meaningful opportunity to be heard.......
-
Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade v. Acanda
...a directed verdict before the time that the party moved against has completed its case in chief." Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church, 784 So.2d 1232, 1232-33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).5 In this case, it is not definitively clear that the Plaintiff had completed her case-in-chief when the ......
-
Lustig v. Garcia, 4D00-1479.
...FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. 1. We are cognizant of the recent decision of the First District in Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church, 784 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), but need not reach the waiver issue addressed in that case as the trial court patently acknowledged Lustig's a......
-
Home At Last Adoption Agency, Inc. v. V.M.
...made are waived. Mole v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 674 So.2d 144, 145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church, 784 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (procedural error not timely raised in trial court is waived unless party asserting error can demonstrate su......