JUVENAL BARRETO, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN WASHINGTON WRAY, ETC., ET AL., 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a new trial on liability and judgment on costs, holding that the defendants failed to preserve error by not making a specific request to resubmit an allegedly inconsistent verdict to the jury.
A party waives the right to challenge a jury verdict as inconsistent when it fails to make a specific request to resubmit the matter to the jury at trial.
[1] A party waives the right to challenge jury verdict inconsistency by failing to make a specific request to resubmit the matter to the jury, even if counsel expresses conce…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuvenal Barreto, Jr. and Juvenal Barreto, Sr. were defendants in a trial involving claims by Norman Wray, Sr. and Christopher Wray. The trial court de…
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 Unpreserved Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Juvenal Barreto, Jr. and Juvenal Barre-to, Sr., the defendants in the trial court, appeal the trial court’s Amended Final Judgment entered after the trial court denied their motion for new trial on liability only as to the claims of plaintiffs Norman Wray, Sr. and Christopher Wray, and after the trial court granted their renewed motion for a partial directed verdict and motion for judgment in accordance with motion for a partial directed verdict as to the claims of Christopher Way. In addition, the Barretos appeal the trial court’s Final Judgment on Taxable Costs, awarding plaintiffs $218,690.14 in costs. We affirm the Amended Final Judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a new trial on liability where the jury’s verdict was consistent with the evidence. We also affirm the Final Judgment on Taxable Costs.
This Court lacks discretion to grant new trials based on unpreserved error. Martinez v. Poly-Ply Corp., 883 So.2d 327, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). In the case before us, although the Barretos’ counsel did tell the judge at sidebar that he “thought” the amended verdict was inconsistent, Florida law requires that there be a specific request to resubmit the matter to the jury. Adoro Marketing, Inc. v. Da Silva, 623 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church, 476 So.2d 289, 290-91 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Such a request was not made in this case, thus the inconsistency was waived. Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlo G. Chiarella v. Ford, 383 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…ng party from strategically avoiding the risk of “having the award unfavorably adjusted.” Id. An objection alone is insufficient because Florida law requires that there be a specific request to resubmit the matter to the jury. See Barreto v. Wray, 40 So. 3d 779, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (observing that “[i]n the case before us, although the Barretos’ counsel did tell the judge at sidebar that he ‘thought’ the amended verdict was inconsistent, Florida law requires that there be a specific request to resubmit…
Authorities Cited
- Cowart v. Kendall United Methodist Church & Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 476 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Adoro Mktg., Inc. v. da Silya, 623 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Leonte Martinez and Sandra Martinez v. Poly-Ply Corp., 883 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)