Luciani v. Nealon
181 So. 3d 1200
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent Ann Nancy Luciani executed a will dated October 4, 2011; appellant (her son) is a beneficiary and challenged the will.
- Appellant alleged lack of testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence by appellee (his sister and the will's personal representative).
- This was a nonjury trial; after appellant rested, appellee moved for involuntary dismissal under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b).
- Trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment for appellee; appellant appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong standard by weighing evidence instead of testing for a prima facie case.
- The district court agreed the trial court weighed evidence (improper), but reviewed de novo whether appellant had nonetheless failed to present a prima facie case.
- Applying the "tipsy coachman" doctrine, the appellate court affirmed because the record, viewed in appellant's favor, showed no prima facie proof of fraud, undue influence, or lack of testamentary capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the involuntary dismissal was improper because the court weighed evidence rather than finding whether appellant made a prima facie case | Appellant: He established a prima facie case on each cause of action and thus dismissal was improper | Appellee: The facts and law did not establish a right to affirmative relief; dismissal proper | Court: Trial court erred in weighing evidence, but on de novo review appellant nonetheless failed to make a prima facie case; judgment affirmed under tipsy coachman |
| Whether appellant proved lack of testamentary capacity | Appellant: Evidence sufficed to show decedent lacked capacity | Appellee: Evidence insufficient to show incapacity | Held: Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of incapacity |
| Whether appellant proved fraud in procurement of the will | Appellant: Evidence supports fraud claim | Appellee: No competent evidence of fraud | Held: No prima facie evidence of fraud |
| Whether appellant proved undue influence | Appellant: Undue influence claim supported by record | Appellee: No sufficient evidence; alternatively, appellee did not contest trial court's weighing | Held: Appellant failed to establish prima facie undue influence; additionally, claim waived on appeal for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brundage v. Bank of America, 996 So.2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (de novo review of involuntary dismissal)
- Day v. Amini, 550 So.2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (movant admits truth of facts favorable to non-movant on Rule 1.420(b) motion)
- McCabe v. Hanley, 886 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (involuntary dismissal proper if evidence, viewed favorably, fails to establish prima facie case)
- Curls v. Tew, 346 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (trial judge may not weigh evidence when ruling on involuntary dismissal)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2002) (explaining the "tipsy coachman" doctrine)
- Sec. Abstract & Ins. Co. v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co. of Penn., 668 So.2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming involuntary dismissal where plaintiff failed to make prima facie case)