Southland Waste Systems, Inc. v. Kersey

841 So. 2d 620, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4470, 2003 WL 1738400
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 3, 2003·No. No. 1D01-3826·Published

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

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

841 So. 2d 620 (Southland Waste Systems, Inc. v. Kersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey
810 So. 2d 988 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Pruitt v. Brock
437 So. 2d 768 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)