Barreto v. Wray

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barreto v. Wray

40 So. 3d 779, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8202, 2010 WL 2292420

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2010

Docket3D09-927, 3D09-1401

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 So. 3d 779 (Barreto v. Wray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barreto v. Wray, 40 So. 3d 779, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8202, 2010 WL 2292420 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

RAMIREZ, C.J.

Juvenal Barreto, Jr. and Juvenal Barre-to, Sr., the defendants in the trial court, appeal the trial court’s Amended Final Judgment entered after the trial court denied their motion for new trial on liability only as to the claims of plaintiffs Norman Wray, Sr. and Christopher Wray, and after the trial court granted their renewed motion for a partial directed verdict and motion for judgment in accordance with motion for a partial directed verdict as to the claims of Christopher Way. In addition, the Barretos appeal the trial court’s Final Judgment on Taxable Costs, awarding plaintiffs $218,690.14 in costs. We affirm the Amended Final Judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a new trial on liability where the jury’s verdict was consistent with the evidence. We also affirm the Final Judgment on Taxable Costs.

This Court lacks discretion to grant new trials based on unpreserved error. Martinez v. Poly-Ply Corp., 883 So.2d 327, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). In the case before us, although the Barretos’ counsel did tell the judge at sidebar that he “thought” the amended verdict was inconsistent, Florida law requires that there be a specific request to resubmit the matter to the jury. Adoro Marketing, Inc. v. Da Silva, 623 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church, 476 So.2d 289, 290-91 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Such a request was not made in this case, thus the inconsistency was waived. Accordingly, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RAMIREZ, C.J.

Juvenal Barreto, Jr. and Juvenal Barre-to, Sr., the defendants in the trial court, appeal the trial court’s Amended Final Judgment entered after the trial court denied their motion for new trial on liability only as to the claims of plaintiffs Norman Wray, Sr. and Christopher Wray, and after the trial court granted their renewed motion for a partial directed verdict and motion for judgment in accordance with motion for a partial directed verdict as to the claims of Christopher Way. In addition, the Barretos appeal the trial court’s Final Judgment on Taxable Costs, awarding plaintiffs $218,690.14 in costs. We affirm the Amended Final Judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a new trial on liability where the jury’s verdict was consistent with the evidence. We also affirm the Final Judgment on Taxable Costs.

This Court lacks discretion to grant new trials based on unpreserved error. Martinez v. Poly-Ply Corp., 883 So.2d 327, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). In the case before us, although the Barretos’ counsel did tell the judge at sidebar that he “thought” the amended verdict was inconsistent, Florida law requires that there be a specific request to resubmit the matter to the jury. Adoro Marketing, Inc. v. Da Silva, 623 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church, 476 So.2d 289, 290-91 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Such a request was not made in this case, thus the inconsistency was waived. Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 So. 3d 779, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8202, 2010 WL 2292420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barreto-v-wray-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack