City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp.

249 So. 2d 62, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6338

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1971

DocketNo. N-324

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 So. 2d 62 (City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp.) 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

City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp., 249 So. 2d 62, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6338 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

SPECTOR, Judge.

Following the first appearance of this case before this court in City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corporation, 202 So.2d 616, a jury trial was had on the question of damages only in plaintiff-appellee’s suit against appellant for damages for breach of a lease agreement. The jury returned a verdict in appellee’s favor in the amount of zero dollars. Thereafter, plaintiff-appellee filed its motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Pursuant to said motions, both of which were embodied in one instrument, the trial court entered its judgment notwithstanding the verdict by ordering that an additur in the amount of $9,830.00 be entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellee against appellant “unless the defendant shall elect in writing within thirty days from the rendition of this judgment to accept a new trial”.

The appellant seeks reversal of the judgment in the cited amount notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that the trial courts of this state have no authority to enter an additur. We agree and reverse.

In Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So.2d 490 (Fla.App.1959), this court, in a well reasoned opinion by the late Judge Wallace Sturgis, reviewed the history of the entry of additurs and concluded by holding that there is no authority in this jurisdiction to require a party to consent to an additur as a condition to refusal to grant a new trial. [63]*63It is our view that the principles enunciated in Sarvis, supra, are dispositive of the issues raised herein.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

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

SPECTOR, Judge.

Following the first appearance of this case before this court in City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corporation, 202 So.2d 616, a jury trial was had on the question of damages only in plaintiff-appellee’s suit against appellant for damages for breach of a lease agreement. The jury returned a verdict in appellee’s favor in the amount of zero dollars. Thereafter, plaintiff-appellee filed its motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Pursuant to said motions, both of which were embodied in one instrument, the trial court entered its judgment notwithstanding the verdict by ordering that an additur in the amount of $9,830.00 be entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellee against appellant “unless the defendant shall elect in writing within thirty days from the rendition of this judgment to accept a new trial”.

The appellant seeks reversal of the judgment in the cited amount notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that the trial courts of this state have no authority to enter an additur. We agree and reverse.

In Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So.2d 490 (Fla.App.1959), this court, in a well reasoned opinion by the late Judge Wallace Sturgis, reviewed the history of the entry of additurs and concluded by holding that there is no authority in this jurisdiction to require a party to consent to an additur as a condition to refusal to grant a new trial. [63]*63It is our view that the principles enunciated in Sarvis, supra, are dispositive of the issues raised herein.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 So. 2d 62, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-fort-walton-beach-v-southern-state-steel-corp-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack