ARENA PARKING, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
LON WORTH CROW INSURANCE AGENCY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Arena Parking appeals a trial court order denying entry of a Second Amended Final Judgment with additur. The appellate court granted the motion to enforce mandate, directing the trial court to approve the additur and clarifying that the court should retain jurisdiction over future damages claims while preserving the right to jury trial on such damages.
The appellate court granted the motion to enforce mandate and directed the trial court to approve the Second Amended Final Judgment with the additur of $120,889.57 plus prejudgment interest. The court clarified that while the trial court should retain jurisdiction over future damages, this retention should not deprive parties of the right to jury trial on such future damages.
[1] A trial court must order a new trial on damages if the party adversely affected by an additur does not agree to it.
[2] A party's counsel affirmatively stating that they do not contest the amount of an additur constitutes agreement with the additur.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.”
Establishes the statutory standard that a new trial on damages is only required if a party genuinely disagrees with the additur amount
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found for Arena Parking but awarded only $28,500 in damages when undisputed evidence showed Arena Parking and intervenor Florida East Coast Rai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Enforce Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Appellant Arena Parking, Inc. has filed a Motion to Enforce Mandate pursuant to Rule 9.300 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellees Lon Worth Crow Insurance Agency and Maria Isabel Gonzalez respond that the trial court correctly denied the request to enter a Second Amended Final Judgment granting additur. Lon Worth Crow and Gonzalez claim that they did not agree with the additur, and, therefore, the trial court properly ordered a new trial on damages. Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (1999), “[i]f the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of. damages only.”
A review of the transcript, however, shows that Lon Worth Crow and Gonzalez did not disagree with the amount of the additur. In fact, their counsel affirmatively stated at the onset of the hearing that they did not contest the amount of the additur. Counsel simply objected to the trial court retaining jurisdiction to award future damages.
The Motion to Enforce Mandate is therefore granted with directions to the trial court to approve the proposed Second Amended Final Judgment after re-computing the prejudgment interest.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION ON ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
RAMIREZ, J.
This is the third appearance of this case before us. On September 26, 2001, we issued an order enforcing mandate. We will now endeavor to clarify that order. The initial issue on appeal was that the jury found for Appellant Arena Parking, Inc., but only awarded damages in the amount of $28,500, when the undisputed evidence showed that the damages incurred by Arena Parking and the intervenor, Florida East Coast Railway Co., were $176,864.40. We ordered the trial court to grant an additur in the amount of $120,889.57, plus prejudgment interest, which had to be re-computed.
We also directed the trial court to approve the proposed Second Final Judgment. That judgment states that the trial court will retain jurisdiction “to consider any application for and to enter an additional judgment or judgments for future damages.... Upon proper filing of a motion and notice of hearing, the Court will conduct one or more evidentiary hearings to determine the amount of any such future damages.” We recognize now that such language is too broad. It was our intent, as requested in Arena Parking’s initial brief, to have the trial court reserve jurisdiction to award future damages. It was not our intent to deprive anyone of the right to trial by jury as to those future damages. Likewise, it was not our intent to express any opinion as to whether or not those damages could exceed the limits of the policy that should have been procured by appellee Lon Worth Crow Insurance Agency.
We therefore grant clarification and direct the trial court to grant an additur in the amount of $120,889.57, plus prejudgment interest. The trial court is simply to retain jurisdiction to deal with any future damages.