[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

“A motion for JNOV is the substantive equivalent of a motion for directed verdict.” Shoreline Found., Inc. v. Brisk, 278 So. 3d 68, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). The granted motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “is essentially an order granting a motion for a directed verdict during trial except that the judgment is made after the jury has returned the verdict.”Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828, 829–30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (internal citations omitted).

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The complete explanation for this Standard;
• The standard of review on appeal; and
• The citations to the most court cases citing and/or explaining the Standard.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

“A motion for JNOV is the substantive equivalent of a motion for directed verdict.” Shoreline Found., Inc. v. Brisk, 278 So. 3d 68, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). The granted motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “is essentially an order granting a motion for a directed verdict during trial except that the judgment is made after the jury has returned the verdict.”Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So. 2d 828, 829–30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (internal citations omitted).

This motion “is appropriate only when there is no evidence upon which a jury could rely in finding for the non-moving party.” Mulvey v. Stephens, 250 So. 3d 106, 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). The trial court must “view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and, in the face of evidence which is at odds or contradictory, all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the party against whom the motion has been made. Similarly, every reasonable conclusion which may be drawn from the evidence must also be construed favorably to the non-movant. Only where there is no evidence upon which a jury could properly rely, in finding for the plaintiff, should a directed verdict be granted. It goes without saying that a motion for directed verdict should be treated with special caution . . .” John Moriarty and Assocs. Of Fla. v. Murton Roofing Corp., 128 So. 3d 58,59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

“Although the term ‘motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict’ is still employed, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion challenging a jury verdict is more properly styled a ‘motion for judgment in accordance with a prior motion for directed verdict.’’”  Speciality Marine & Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Venus, 66 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)  (internal citations omitted).

The standard of review on appeal for an order granting or denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is de novo. However, the appellate court reviewing an order granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not reverse a denial of the motion if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the verdict for the non-moving party. Kurnow v. Abbott, 114 So. 3d 1099, 1101-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Campbell, 78 So. 3d 595, 601-02 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Prewitt Enterprises, LLC v. Tommy Constantine Racing, LLC, 185 So. 3d 566, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

---

Supreme Court: Tynan v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co, 254 So. 2d 209, 212-14 (Fla. 1971) (quashing grant of motion for judgment n.o.v).

First District: Specialty Marine & Indus. Supplies, Inc. v. Venus, 66 So. 3d 306, 309-11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing grant of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); Fine v. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc., 994 So. 2d 426, 427-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “and remand[ing] for reconsideration).

Second District: Roman v. Sos, 393 So. 3d 1263, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); San Marco Realty, Inc. v. Dopierala, 14 So. 3d 1108, 1108-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing grant of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); Cooper Hotel Servs., Inc. v. MacFarland, 662 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“remand[ing] to the trial court with directions to set aside the jury verdict and to enter judgment . . . notwithstanding the verdict.”).

Third District: Pla v. Rierson, 406 So. 3d 1027, 1031-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Forbes v. Millionaire Gallery, Inc., 335 So. 3d 1260, 1262-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)  (affirming denial of directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict);  Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 739-43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (affirming judgment notwithstanding the verdict).

Fourth District: Shoreline Found., Inc. v. Brisk, 278 So. 3d 68, 73-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (reversing denial of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict);  Hurchalla v. Lake Point Phase I, LLC, 278 So. 3d 58, 61-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Fifth District: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Elec. Funds Transfer Corp., 326 So. 3d 753, 754-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (reversing denial of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); Wallace v. Odham, 579 So. 2d 171, 173-76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (reversing “the judgment N.O.V.”).

---

2 Issues And Considerations

(1) In reviewing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a court will find that “[i]ncrease of risk or hazard is a question for the jury, unless in a particular case the evidence is so conclusive that reasonable minds cannot differ, atleast, so far as increase of physical hazard is concerned.” Smith v. Peninsular Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 212, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (discussing why “enter[ing] the judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the jury’s verdict” was an error).

(2) “It [is] improper for the trial court to grant the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict [when] there [is] no motion for directed verdict on which ruling was deferred.” Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

(3) [I]t is . . . inappropriate for the court to grant a JNOV sua sponte based on information that was not presented to the jury. Marocco v. Brabec, 299 So. 3d 416, 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

(4) “[A] judgment notwithstanding the verdict cannot be entered unless a directed verdict was requested earlier in the case.” Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Anderson, 501 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1^st DCA 1986); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 619 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

[/MM_Access_Decision]