Time for serving Motion for Additur runs from date verdict is returned, not date judgment is entered

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Additur —
Denial — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Motion for additur was not timely served
under rule 1.530(b) where it was not filed with trial court until 19 days after
return of jury verdict — Untimely motion for additur did not suspend rendition
of final judgment — Appeal dismissed as untimely

OSTHENE JOSEPH and LINDA DEVELON, Appellants, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D12-3424. March 26, 2014. Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David
Krathen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-46305 09. Counsel: Marcus Susen and Justin
Parafinzcuk of Koch Parafinczuk & Wolf, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for
appellants. Sharon C. Degnan of Kubicki Draper, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

(Klingensmith, J.) Appellants, Osthene Joseph and Linda Develon, appeal the
trial court’s denial of their joint motion for additur in an underinsured
motorist action. The certificate of service on this motion reflects that it was
not served until nineteen days after the return of the jury’s verdict. After the
motion was served, and thirty-one days after the verdict was rendered, the court
entered its judgment in favor of the appellants in accord with the jury’s
findings.

Although other post-trial motions filed by the appellants were dismissed by
the trial court as untimely, appellants asserted that their motion for additur
could be considered because the ten-day rule in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.530(b), in effect at the time the motion was filed, did not apply to motions
for additur.1 The trial court heard the
parties’ arguments on the additur request and ultimately denied the motion.
Although this appeal ensued from the order denying the motion for additur, no
appeal was ever filed against the final judgment.

Appellees allege this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
this appeal because appellants’ motion for additur was untimely served in the
trial court. For the reasons set forth below, we agree and dismiss appellants’
appeal.

A motion for additur is the equivalent of a conditional motion for new trial
under rule 1.530(b); therefore, it must also be served within the same number of
days after the verdict to suspend rendition of the final judgment. See Hauss
v. Waxman, 866 So. 2d 758, 759-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Fire & Cas.
Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So. 2d 988, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (motion
for remittitur is the equivalent of a conditional motion for new trial and must
be served within ten days of verdict under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.530(b)).

Here, appellants’ motion for additur was not timely served as required by
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) as it was filed with the trial court
nineteen days after the return of the jury verdict. As a result, the rendition
of the final judgment was not suspended. Because the appellants also failed to
file a timely appeal following the entry of the judgment, this court does not
have jurisdiction to consider the denial of the post-trial motion. See
Sealey, 810 So. 2d at 991 (an untimely motion for new trial is ineffective
to suspend rendition of final judgment).

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Warner and Forst, JJ.,
concur.)