Southland Waste Systems, Inc. v. Kersey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Southland Waste Systems, Inc. v. Kersey

841 So. 2d 620, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4470, 2003 WL 1738400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2003

DocketNo. 1D01-3826

StatusPublished

This text of 841 So. 2d 620 (Southland Waste Systems, Inc. v. Kersey) 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

Southland Waste Systems, Inc. v. Kersey, 841 So. 2d 620, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4470, 2003 WL 1738400 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because it is apparent from the record that the trial court was of the opinion that appellant’s motion for remittitur had not been timely served, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b), and because that finding is supported by competent substantial evidence, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on that motion. See Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So.2d 988, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA) (noting that “[a] motion for remittitur is essentially a conditional motion for a new trial”), review denied, 828 So.2d 385 (Fla.2002); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) (stating that a trial court “may not extend the time for making a motion for new trial”); Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So.2d 768, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (stating that a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case upon expiration of the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing unless such a motion has been timely served). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of that motion without addressing its merit.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because it is apparent from the record that the trial court was of the opinion that appellant’s motion for remittitur had not been timely served, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b), and because that finding is supported by competent substantial evidence, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on that motion. See Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So.2d 988, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA) (noting that “[a] motion for remittitur is essentially a conditional motion for a new trial”), review denied, 828 So.2d 385 (Fla.2002); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) (stating that a trial court “may not extend the time for making a motion for new trial”); Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So.2d 768, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (stating that a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case upon expiration of the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing unless such a motion has been timely served). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of that motion without addressing its merit.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 So. 2d 620, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4470, 2003 WL 1738400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southland-waste-systems-inc-v-kersey-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack