Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 3, 2014 by admin

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

39 Fla. L. Weekly D624a


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.)

__________________

1Pursuant to rule 1.530(b) “[a] motion for
new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than 10 days after the
return of the verdict in a jury action . . . .” Rule 1.530 subsections (b) and
(g) were both amended in 2013 to change the deadlines for service of certain
motions from ten to fifteen days after the specified event.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982