VOLUMES IN VALUE, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BUY MAIL INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, BUY MAIL INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND IRA LEVY, 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 court held that it was error to grant a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion for a new trial in a law action.
Plaintiff obtained a jury verdict, defendants moved for a new trial, the motion was denied, defendants then filed a motion to vacate the denial, which…
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 New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order granting •a new trial in a case decided by a jury.
Plaintiff-appellant brought suit on various trade acceptances and a written guaranty of one of the defendants. Defendants answered and counterclaimed. Following a jury verdict, returned on June 12, 1964, in favor of plaintiff on its cause, and against the defendants on their counterclaim, defendants, on June 20, 1964, filed a motion for a new trial. On June 25, 1964, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for new trial. On June 30, 1964, defendants filed a motion styled motion to vacate order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. On July 2, 1964, final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict was entered. On August 28, 1964, the trial court entered an order granting defendants’ motion to vacate the order denying the motion for a new trial. On October 7, 1964, a hearing was held, and on October 23, 1964 the trial court entered its order granting defendants’ motion for a new trial. It is this last order which we are called upon to review.
After a most careful consideration of the record on appeal it is our conclusion that defendants’ motion to vacate the order denying the motion for new trial was, in substance, a motion for rehearing of the order denying the motion for new trial.
This court has said that:
“ * * * [T]he applicable rules of procedure made no provision for a motion for rehearing in a law action of an order denying a motion for new trial.”1
We hold that it was error to rehear defendants’ motion for new trial. Defendants’ proper remedy was by way of appeal. Having elected to proceed in a procedurally unauthorized manner, we have no alternative but that of reversing the order appealed with directions to reinstate the judgment entered on the jury verdict.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s not a “judgment” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and that the trial court was, therefore, without authority to entertain Victoria Marine’s motion for rehearing. Cf Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail International, Inc., 177 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (trial court erred in entertaining what was in substance a motion for rehearing of an order [*1392] denying motion for new trial as the applicable rules of procedure make no provision for a motion for rehearing of such an order).…
-
Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division OF Administration, 315 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…d no authority to entertain or consider a subsequently filed motion or petition for rehearing directed to. a denial of a new trial. DePadro v. Moore, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 27; Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail International, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 511. Simply stated, there is no provision in the rules of civil procedure for a rehearing of a denial of a motion for a new trial and rehearing. The trial court, therefore, appropriately denied plaintiff’s motions “for limited rehearing”. However, the…
-
Frazier v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 508 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1987)…A 1977); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, 315 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); DePadro v. Moore, 215 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1969); Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail International, Inc., 177 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). We agree with the First District’s analysis in Martin v. Carlton, 470 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), that Bowen concerned “the duplicative appeal procedures” and “the unproductive time delays and expense” involved when an orde…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nita Mathis v. Butler, 128 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- LEE v. Elliott, 155 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)