
    BRISCOE ENTERPRISES LTD. OF FLORIDA III, Leonard E. Briscoe, the Leonard E. Briscoe Company of Texas, Inc., and Briscoe Management Company, Inc., Appellants, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 92-0156.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Aug. 11, 1993.
    Rehearing or Clarification Denied Sept. 30, 1993.
    Kenneth G. Spillias of Law Office of Kenneth G. Spillias, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
    Thomas Tew and Tammy Fields, Asst. County Attys., West Palm Beach, and Jose Garcia-Pedrosa and Sheri J. Alden of Tew & Garcia-Pedrosa, Miami, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellants argue that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellee on all counts of appellants’ amended counterclaim and on appellee’s claim on the promissory note in its third amended complaint. We agree and reverse.

A motion for directed verdict should be granted only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Garrahan v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 569 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Upon a review of the record, we conclude there was some evidence supporting each count of appellants’ counterclaim, as well as appellants’ defenses to the action on the note. We also find record evidence of damages that a jury could have accepted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Our reversal of the directed verdict on the legal defenses and counterclaim necessarily requires that the foreclosure judgment also be reversed to abide the result in the new trial.

REVERSED.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., and MAY, MELANIE G., Associate Judge, concur.  