Scott v. Cummings

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. Cummings

238 So. 2d 449, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5979

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1970

DocketNo. L-379

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 So. 2d 449 (Scott v. Cummings) 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

Scott v. Cummings, 238 So. 2d 449, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5979 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a revised final judgment entered by the trial court in a nonjury trial whereby the court’s original judgment in the amount of $960.-00 was increased to $4,000.00.

The case arose out of an assault and battery committed by appellant upon appel-lee when the latter was caught by appellant encroaching upon what appellant appeared to believe were his exclusive conjugal prerogatives. The sole issue presented for our consideration is the trial court’s authority in a nonjury trial to amend an earlier judgment by increasing same. Appellant contends that Rule 1.530 (a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., prohibits the opening of a judgment if one has been entered unless additional testimony is taken. We do not agree with appellant’s interpretation of the cited rule.

Rule 1.530(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is as follows:

“Jury and Non-Jury Actions. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter, a new judgment.”

The well reasoned revised final judgment recited as the basis for the increased amount of damages that the first final judgment failed to include damages for pain and suffering. The court perceived this failure to have been an error in law which he thought should be rectified by revising the judgment so as to include damages for pain and suffering. We think the trial court’s action is fully authorized by this court’s interpretation of the cited rule in Pensacola Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Costa, Fla.App., 195 So.2d 250, wherein we stated:

“ * * * In a court action, however, there will be many times when proper relief may be accorded by something far less than actual new trial, such as the taking of additional testimony, the amendment of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or the judgment.”

An interpretation of the cited rule in a manner consistent with the pronouncements of this court in th.e above case requires af-firmance of the revised final judgment herein.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a revised final judgment entered by the trial court in a nonjury trial whereby the court’s original judgment in the amount of $960.-00 was increased to $4,000.00.

The case arose out of an assault and battery committed by appellant upon appel-lee when the latter was caught by appellant encroaching upon what appellant appeared to believe were his exclusive conjugal prerogatives. The sole issue presented for our consideration is the trial court’s authority in a nonjury trial to amend an earlier judgment by increasing same. Appellant contends that Rule 1.530 (a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., prohibits the opening of a judgment if one has been entered unless additional testimony is taken. We do not agree with appellant’s interpretation of the cited rule.

Rule 1.530(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is as follows:

“Jury and Non-Jury Actions. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter, a new judgment.”

The well reasoned revised final judgment recited as the basis for the increased amount of damages that the first final judgment failed to include damages for pain and suffering. The court perceived this failure to have been an error in law which he thought should be rectified by revising the judgment so as to include damages for pain and suffering. We think the trial court’s action is fully authorized by this court’s interpretation of the cited rule in Pensacola Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Costa, Fla.App., 195 So.2d 250, wherein we stated:

“ * * * In a court action, however, there will be many times when proper relief may be accorded by something far less than actual new trial, such as the taking of additional testimony, the amendment of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or the judgment.”

An interpretation of the cited rule in a manner consistent with the pronouncements of this court in th.e above case requires af-firmance of the revised final judgment herein.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 2d 449, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-cummings-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack