ACA BRANDON, INC., AND ACA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
PAULA K. HOOYMAN AND KEVIN B. HOOYMAN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 2002-08-23
No. 2D01-5479
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
823 So. 2d 874 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders New Trial Order Jurisdiction Of Trial Court Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of New Trial Orders cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WHATLEY, Judge.

WHATLEY, Judge.

ACA Brandon, Inc., and ACA Management Systems, Inc., appeal the order granting Paula K. Hooyman and Kevin B. Hooyman a new trial pursuant to the Hooymans’ supplemental and amended motion for new trial. We reverse because the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for supplemental motions for new trial or for motions for rehearing of orders denying motions for new trial. Once the trial court denied the Hooymans’ original motion for new trial, it had no authority to rehear the matter. Furthermore, even if the rules of procedure did provide for supplemental motions for new trial, the Hooymans’ motion did not set forth sufficient grounds for the granting of a new trial.

Accordingly, we reverse the order granting new trial and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a judgment on the jury’s verdict in the trial of this matter. Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Leon J. Abram, M.D. & Leon J. Abram, M.D., P.A. v. Wolicki, 864 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
    …nsider it.” Id.; see also Fiber Crete, 315 So. 2d at 492; Huffman v. Little, 341 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d [*21] DCA 1977); Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail Int’l, Inc., 177 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). More recently, in ACA Brandon, Inc. v. Hooyman, 823 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), appellant appealed the trial court’s order granting appellees a new trial pursuant to a supplemental and amended motion for new trial after the trial court had initially denied the motion for new trial. The district court reverse…
  • Collins v. Douglass, 874 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
    …his court refused to find that this general principle of law gave the trial court the authority to rehear an initial order denying a motion for new trial or to vacate that initial order. Id. at 936-37. See also ACA Brandon, Inc. v. Hooy- [*631] man, 823 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(holding that “[o]nce the trial court denied the ... original motion for new trial, it had no authority to rehear the matter,” and remanding for entry of final judgment). Although Miller involved a motion for rehearing and in…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw