WILLIAM J. WHEELER, APPELLANT,
v.
D. R. NELSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF W. C. NELSON, DECEASED, AND EDITH GREER, 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.
Wheeler appeals a trial court's remittitur order reducing a jury verdict in a malicious prosecution case from $20,000 to $4,500. The appellate court affirms the trial judge's discretion to reduce the award, holding that the original verdict was excessive and the remittitur was properly entered.
The court affirmed the trial judge's remittitur order, holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion in reducing the verdict. The trial court's finding that the original verdict was contrary to the evidence, grossly excessive, and shocked the conscience was supported by the record, and the remittitur was properly granted.
“The trial Court has a broad discretion in dealing with jury verdicts upon factual questions as distinguished from questions of law. The order of remittitur comes here with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review for remittitur orders and the deference given to trial courts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWheeler was arrested overnight on a warrant taken out by Greer, an employee of Nelson, charging him with obtaining lodging and absconding without paym…
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 On Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant William J. Wheeler (hereinafter Wheeler) appeals to this Court from an order of remittitur, or if declined a new *12trial on damages only, entered by the Sarasota County Circuit Court after trial by jury and verdict in favor of Wheeler and against appellees D. R. Nelson, as Administrator of the Estate of W. C. Nelson, Deceased, (hereinafter Nelson) and Edith Greer (hereinafter Greer).
Wheeler was plaintiff in the Court below and Nelson and Greer were defendants. The verdict awarded Wheeler compensatory damages of $10,000.00 against the defendants jointly, and also punitive damages of $5,000.00 against Nelson and Greer each, or a total of $20,000.00 damages. The remittitur was for “all amounts set forth in the verdict * * * in excess of $3,000.00 compensatory damages jointly and severally against the defendants [Nelson and Greer], and of all amounts set forth in the verdict * * * in excess of $750.00 punitive damages against each of said Defendants.” The order of remittitur provided in effect that if Wheeler would not acquiesce in such remittitur “the verdict shall be set aside and a new trial had on the question of damages only.” Wheeler has elected to appeal directly to this Court, contending that the trial Judge abused his discretion in entering the order. We disagree and affirm. The Judge held that “the amount of the verdict * * * is contrary to the evidence, grossly excessive and shocks the conscience of the Court”.
The suit sought damages for malicious prosecution, arising out of the arrest and incarceration of Wheeler in the County jail over night on a warrant taken out by Greer, acting as an employee of Nelson, charging Wheeler with the alleged crime of obtaining lodging and absconding without paying the bill therefor, with attempt to defraud.
The jury heard all the evidence at the trial and returned a verdict in favor of Wheeler for a total of $20,000.00. The trial Judge likewise heard all the evidence and in effect reduced the award to a total of $4,500.00. The only point here is whether the Judge abused his discretion in reducing the total award that much.
The trial Court has a broad discretion in dealing with jury verdicts upon factual questions as distinguished from questions of law. The order of remittitur comes here with a presumption of correctness. The jury found for Wheeler on the merits of his claim and the trial Court sustained such finding of liability. The record before this Court is ample to sustain such finding. The record is likewise ample to sustain the trial Court’s order granting a new trial if Wheeler was unwilling to accept a reduced award.
A stronger showing is required to reverse an order granting a new trial than to reverse one denying it. Pyms v. Meranda, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 341; Pemberton v. Keel, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 632; Brown v. Fawcett Publications,Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 465. This is especially true where the order granting a new trial was strictly within the factual area as distinguished from a pure question of law affecting the verdict. Florida Power Corp. v. Smith, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 872; Boutwell v. Bishop, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 3; Collins Fruit Co. v. Giglio, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 447.
No good purpose would be served in reviewing the evidence. Suffice to say that the record here is sufficient to sustain the order appealed from, and such order is accordingly—
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
August L. Bobenhausen v. Cassat Ave. Mobile Homes, Inc., 344 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…a ten to one ratio. There is no question but that a trial judge may in his discretion review a jury’s verdict when he feels the verdict is excessive, contrary to the evidence heard at trial and shocks the conscience of the court. Wheeler v. Nelson, 229 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969). We are aware that an order of the trial judge granting a remittitur is discretionary and may not be set aside on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. E. g., Brewer v. Sun Ray Drug Co. of Florida, 105 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2…
-
Wheeler v. Nelson, 237 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 229 So. 2d 11.…
-
Lyman v. Charles L. Fanta & the Travelers Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…he burden of the appellant to upset such an order granting a new trial contrasted with an order denying a new trial [Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Cross v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 21; Wheeler v. Nelson, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 11], we fail to find that the appellant has made error appear in the rendition of the order. Cloud v. Fallis, supra; Pittman v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 279; Bullard v. Canale, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 237. Because this matter must be retried,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pyms v. Meranda, 98 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1957)
- Collins Fruit Co. v. Giglio, 184 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Brown v. Fawcett Publ'ns, Inc., 196 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Sardell v. Malanio, 202 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Jenethel Smith, 202 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Benevento v. Armand Benevento, 194 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Boutwell v. Bishop, 194 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Weynona R. Pemberton v. Keel, 195 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)