KENNETH HEMMERLE, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when a directed verdict is entered, the ten-day period for serving a motion for new trial runs from the date of the judgment, not from the date of the directed verdict. This interpretation ensures appeals are decided on their merits rather than dismissed on technicalities.
The ten-day period for serving a motion for new trial runs from the date of judgment, not from the date of the directed verdict. Therefore, Hemmerle's motion for new trial and appeal were timely, and the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
[1] A motion for new trial must be served not later than 10 days after the return of the verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.
[2] In Florida, a directed verdict is not considered a verdict for the purpose of triggering the time period for serving a motion for new trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a directed verdict does not function as a verdict, and indeed is the very antithesis of one”
Establishes that a directed verdict is not equivalent to a jury verdict for purposes of triggering procedural deadlines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Hemmerle appealed from an order awarding attorney's fees. The trial court directed a verdict, and Hemmerle's motion for new trial was served w…
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 Tolling Of Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
While considering a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order awarding attorney’s fees, we asked the appellant to show cause why the appeal from final judgment should not be dismissed since his motion for new trial was not served within ten days of the directed verdict. If the motion for new trial was not timely served, it would not toll the time for taking the appeal, and we would not have jurisdiction. Casto v. Casto, 404 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.1981).
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) provides that a motion for new trial shall be “served not later than 10 days after the return of the verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.” In this case, the motion for new trial was served within ten days of the judgment, but more than ten days after the court directed a verdict.
The rule, in our opinion, is unclear. When the judge directs a verdict, there is no “return” of the verdict, because an order directing a verdict is “effective without any assent of the jury.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.480(a). Yet the rule would make it appear that the ten day period would only run from the judgment in a “non-jury action.”1
The only case we find on point is Meus v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc., 499 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), in which the third district reasoned that “a directed verdict does not function as a verdict, and indeed is the very antithesis of one.” The court thus concluded that it was the judgment, not the directed verdict, which started the running of the ten day period for service of the motion for new trial.
We conclude that Mens provides the better way to interpret this rule, because otherwise the lack of clarity can result in appeals being dismissed on technicalities rather than being heard on their merits. Also, if we were to hold that the time ran from the directed verdict, it would be the only time period which would run from what is usually an oral pronouncement of the court. We therefore conclude that the motion for new trial and appeal were timely.
POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the counterpart to Florida's Rule 1.530, it is always the judgment which triggers the time period for a motion for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Casto v. Casto, 404 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1981)
- Delphine Meus and Erith Mens v. Eagle Fam. Disc. Stores, Inc., 499 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)