STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PERCY COX 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 State Road Department appealed from a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding and from an order granting a new trial conditioned on payment of increased attorney fees. The court reversed the new trial order, holding that trial courts lack power to condition denial of a new trial on acceptance of an additur in unliquidated damages cases, and that the jury's award of attorney fees was not inadequate.
Trial courts are without power to require acceptance of an additur as a condition of refusing to grant a new trial in actions involving controverted and unliquidated damages. Additionally, the jury's attorney fee award of $600 was not inadequate and did not shock the conscience of the court, even though testimony suggested 10% of the award would be appropriate.
“in actions at law involving controverted and unliquidated damages courts are without power to require a party to consent to an additur as a condition of refusal to grant a new trial”
Establishes the legal principle that courts cannot condition denial of a new trial on acceptance of an additur in unliquidated damages cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Road Department sought to acquire certain parcels of property through eminent domain. A jury awarded the property owners $13,950 for the par…
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 Additur cases and more on FLexlaw
The State Road Department of Florida, the petitioner below in a proceeding in eminent domain, appealed from thef final judgment, and from an order granting a new trial on attorney fees, as to certain parcels.
As to the final judgment, which was included in the notice of appeal, the appellant filed no assignments of error, and certain cross-assignments directed thereto by the appellees have been considered in the light of the arguments and the record, and are found to be without merit.
The order for new trial was challenged by the appellant for granting an additur to increase by $104 the amount of attorneys’ fees which had been allowed by the jury for the services of the defendants’ attorneys as to certain of the parcels involved in the suit.1
In making awards to the owners for such parcels the jury accepted the testimony of the petitioner’s witness as to the value of the property. The verdict allowed the owners $13,950, on the parcels in question, and made provision for attorney fees incident thereto amounting to $600, which represented approximately 4.3% of the awards for the property.
We must reverse the order granting a new trial, on the authority of the case of Sarvis v. Folsom, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 490, 492, which held that “in actions at law involving controverted and unliquidated damages courts are without power to require a party to consent to an additur as a condition of refusal to grant a new trial.” In fairness to the trial judge who made the order for the additur in this case it must be noted that his order preceded by some months that ruling in Sar-vis v. Folsom, supra.
Nor is the order for new trial on attorney fees supported by any showing on *670the record of inadequacy of amount, and the amount was not such as to shock the conscience of the court. The fact that the only testimony as to attorneys’ fees to be allowed in this instance was ten percent of the amount of the award, did not prevent the jury from finding a lesser amount. Breitbart v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla. App.1959, 116 So.2d 458; Fekany v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 418; Romy v. Dade County, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 8; Folmar v. Davis, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 772.
For the reasons stated the order for new trial is reversed and the final judgment affirmed, relating to the parcels involved on this appeal.
It is so ordered.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth., 131 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1961)…dicating the extent to which he considered the verdict unjust, we do not recognize his authority to effectuate an increase in the verdict of the jury. See Sarvis v. Folsom, Fla.App., 114 So. 2d 490; State Road Department of Florida v. Cox, Fla.App., 118 So. 2d 668; Wohlfiel v. Morris, Fla.App., 122 So. 2d 235. We quash the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, so that the cause may proceed to a new trial in the circuit court instead of being concluded by entry of a judgment for the sum of…
-
Healy v. Atwater, 269 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ered an additur for plaintiffs. Florida courts have consistently ruled against the granting of additurs, see City of Fort Walton Beach v. Southern State Steel Corp., Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 62; State Road Department of Florida v. Cox, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 668; Sarvis v. Folsom, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 490, and nothing in the instant case has persuaded us to reverse this trend in our jurisprudence. Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions that the affirmative defenses be reinstated and that the…
-
Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Mora, 940 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2006)…dicating the extent to which he considered the verdict unjust, we do not recognize his authority to effectuate an increase in the verdict of the jury. See Sarvis v. Folsom, Fla.App., 114 So. 2d 490; State Road Department of Florida v. Cox, Fla.App., 118 So. 2d 668; Wohlfiel v. Morris, Fla.App., 122 So. 2d 235. In Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), to which we referred, the First District stated: We hold, in line with what we consider to be the better rule and the weight of authority, that…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Folmar v. Davis, 108 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Sarvis v. Folsom, 114 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Breitbart v. State Rd. Dep't OF Fla., 116 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Romy v. Dade Cnty., 114 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Fekany v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 115 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)