IRVING WALTMAN AND ALBERT COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF PRIME-FLORIDA, INC., AND W.C. ASSOCIATES, LTD., APPELLANTS,
v.
PRIME MOTOR INNS, INC., PRIME MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., PRIME-FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Appellants Waltman and Cohen challenged a trial court's directed verdict on one claim and new trial order on damages in a dispute over sale proceeds from jointly owned motor inns. The appellate court reversed both rulings, reinstating the jury verdicts of $200,000 and $500,000 respectively, finding the directed verdict was improperly granted during trial and the new trial order lacked sufficient reasoning.
The directed verdict was improperly granted because the motion was not made at the close of all evidence as required by law, so the $200,000 jury verdict on the first claim is reinstated. The new trial order on the second claim was improper because the trial court failed to state reasons supporting its conclusions and sufficient evidence supported the $500,000 jury verdict, so that verdict is also reinstated.
[1] A motion for directed verdict must be made at the close of all the evidence to be legally sufficient.
[2] An order granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is excessive and against the manifest weight of the evidence must state reasons supporting the court's conclu…
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“appellees' motion for directed verdict was made during the charge conference held while trial was still in progress. Finding that appellants' position is supported by law, 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, 104 So.2d 337 (Fla.1958), we reverse the judgment in accordance with directed verdict”
Establishes that the directed verdict motion was improperly timed and therefore the ruling must be reversed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaltman and Cohen, individually and on behalf of Prime-Florida, Inc. and W.C. Associates, Ltd., were involved in joint ventures owning motor inns. The…
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 Excessive Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellants dispute the trial court’s order granting judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict on one claim and granting a new trial on damages on appellants’ second claim following the jury’s return of verdicts in appellants’ favor. The litigation concerned the sale of jointly owned interests in motor inns. Appellants sought damages alleging they were deprived of their rightful share of the sale proceeds by their associates in the joint ventures. Appellants assert that reversal is required because appellees failed to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence; appellees’ motion for directed verdict was made during the charge conference held while trial was still in progress. Finding that appellants’ position is supported by law, 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1958), we reverse the judgment in accordance with directed verdict and reinstate the jury verdict of $200,000 for the first claim.
Turning to the second claim, we reiterate the rule that a trial court order granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is excessive and against the manifest weight of the evidence must state reasons supporting the court’s conclusions. The purpose of the rule is to enable this court to proceed with appellate review. White v. Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The test to be applied by the trial court before granting a new trial as to damages is whether a jury of reasonable persons could have returned the verdict. Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1969). We are unable to discern reasons justifying the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial. On the contrary, we find sufficient evidence to sustain the jury award of $500,-000 on appellants’ second claim, noting particularly a form filed with the Securities Exchange Commission; we therefore hold that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the issue of damages. See White. We reverse the order granting a new trial and reinstate the jury verdict of $500,000 as to the second claim.
We find no merit in appellants’ claim for punitive damages, Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Hanft, 436 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1983), and, similarly, we reject appel-lees’ plain error argument. See Pickard v. Maritime Holding Corp., 161 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
Reversed with directions to reinstate the jury verdicts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…Inc., 408 So. 2d 229 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), cert. dism.’d, 415 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.1982); Schimmel, supra. Punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract, notwithstanding the oppressive nature of the breach. Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 446 So. 2d 185 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); Mobile Chemical Company, A Division of Mobil Corporation v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. den., 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984); Guthartz v. Lewis, 408 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), aff'd, 428 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1983).…
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…influenced or that the verdict was excessive by $130,000.25 See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Laird v. Potter, 367 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1979). See also Wattman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 446 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Because it cannot be said that the amount of the verdict is such as to shock the conscience of the court and because the excessiveness of the verdict is neither apparent nor ascertainable from the record, the trial court’s order…
-
Prime Motor Inns, Inc. v. Waltman, 480 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1985)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review Waltman v. Prime Motor Inns, Inc., 446 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), involving two actions which were consolidated for trial. In the first action, the district court reversed the trial court order granting petitioners a new trial on the ground that the trial court did not set forth reasons justify…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)
- 6551 Collins Ave. Corp. v. Beverlee Millen, 104 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1958)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Hanft, 436 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1983)
- Royal Odell White, Jr. v. Oswaldo Tomas Martinez, 359 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Rod Pickard and George H. Henry v. Mar. Holdings Corp., 161 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)