DON S.E. SHALHUB, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREWS ROOFING & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Negligent Inspection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a complaint seeking damages for breach of contract in the negligent inspection of a residence the plaintiff was contemplating buying. There was a jury verdict for the plaintiff of $22,577.28. The trial court entered a remittitur down to $5,000. There was no provision for acceptance of the remittitur or a new trial on damages only. The appellant contends, first that the trial court should not have entered a remittitur. We find no error on this point. De la Vallina v. De la Vallina, 90 Fla. 905, 107 So. 339 (1926); Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 281 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); .Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987).
The appellant secondly contends that the trial court erred in not giving him the option of accepting the remittitur or having a new trial limited to the issue of damages. We agree. Bom v. Goldstein, 450 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987). Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order giving the plaintiff therein a time certain to either accept the remittitur, or have a new trial on the issue of damages only.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regency Lake Apts. Assocs., Ltd. v. French, 590 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…hat when a court enters an order of remittitur, the order itself must provide the adversely affected party the option of accepting a remittitur or of having a new trial limited to the issue of damages. Shalhub v. Andrews Roofing and Improvement Co., 530 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988). The order in the instant case fails to provide for the option of a new trial. We, therefore, remand to the trial court to enter an order giving the appellees/cross appellants the opportunity to either accept the remittitur or ha…
-
Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Dombrosky, 579 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ssue of damages alone. Dombro-sky relies on cases which suggest that the trial court may enter additur only if the plaintiff has first had the option of having a new trial on the issue of damages. Shal-hub v. Andrews Roofing & Improvement Co., Inc., 530 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988.) The school board responds that a new trial on both liability and damages is necessary because the issue of liability was hotly contested. We agree with the school board and reverse and remand for a new trial upon liability and d…
-
Olivas v. Peterson, 969 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…o appellants. See Concept, L.C. v. Gesten, 662 So. 2d 970, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“That appellants, given the option, would not have accepted the remittitur is adequately manifested by this appeal.”-); Shalhub v. Andrews Roofing & Improvement Co., 530 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that the trial court erred by not affording the option of accepting a remittitur or having a new trial on damages, and remanding for the trial court to enter an order giving the option); Stuart v. Cather Indus., Inc., 327…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- de la Vallina v. de la Vallena, 90 Fla. 905 (Fla. 1926)
- Born v. Goldstein, 450 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 281 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)