CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN STATE STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The trial court has no authority to enter an additur.
Plaintiff sued for breach of lease agreement and received a jury verdict of zero dollars. The trial court granted a new trial unless the defendant acc…
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 Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
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. *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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…his final judgment for plaintiffs, set aside the jury verdict and entered an additur for plaintiffs. Florida courts have consistently ruled against the granting of additurs, see City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp., Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 62; State Road Department of Florida v. Cox, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 668; Sarvis v. Folsom, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 490, and nothing in the instant case has persuaded us to reverse this trend in our jurisprudence. Therefore, we reverse and remand wi…
-
Acceus ST. Pierre v. Pub. GAS Co., 423 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…in rejecting a trial court’s authority to impose an additur.3 See Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, 131 So. 2d 740 (Fla.1961); Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp., 249 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Wohlfiel v. Morris, 122 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); State Road Department of Florida v. Cox, 118 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). We share the Second Circuit’s view that the…
-
Vega v. Stabinski & Funt, P.A., 510 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…y does not recognize additurs, except as provided in sections 768.043 and 768.49, Florida Statutes.4 [*348] Smith v. Telophase Nat. Cremation Soc., Inc., 471 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); See City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp., 249 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); State Road Dep’t of Florida v. Cox, 118 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The record is devoid of any evidence to persuade us to reverse this trend. Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- City OF Fort Walton Beach v. S. State Steel Corp., 202 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)