JOHN SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE CUMMINGS, APPELLEE
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.
In a nonjury trial for assault and battery, the trial court increased its judgment from $960 to $4,000 to include damages for pain and suffering that were omitted from the original judgment. The appellate court upheld the trial court's authority under Florida Rule 1.530(a) to amend and increase a judgment in a nonjury case.
The trial court has authority under Rule 1.530(a) to amend and increase a judgment in a nonjury trial when the court determines that an error in law was made, such as the failure to include damages for pain and suffering in the original judgment.
[1] A trial court may open a judgment and enter a new judgment in a nonjury trial, even if a judgment has already been entered, to correct an error in law.
[2] A trial court has the authority to amend a prior judgment by increasing the award of damages to include elements such as pain and suffering, if such an inclusion was erro…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter, a new judgment.”
The text of Rule 1.530(a) that authorizes amendment of judgments in nonjury trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Scott committed an assault and battery upon appellee Cummings when Cummings was found encroaching upon what Scott believed were his exclusiv…
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 Amendment Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of a revised final judgment entered by the trial court in a nonjury trial whereby the court’s original judgment in the amount of $960.-00 was increased to $4,000.00.
The case arose out of an assault and battery committed by appellant upon appel-lee when the latter was caught by appellant encroaching upon what appellant appeared to believe were his exclusive conjugal prerogatives. The sole issue presented for our consideration is the trial court’s authority in a nonjury trial to amend an earlier judgment by increasing same. Appellant contends that Rule 1.530 (a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., prohibits the opening of a judgment if one has been entered unless additional testimony is taken. We do not agree with appellant’s interpretation of the cited rule.
Rule 1.530(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is as follows:
“Jury and Non-Jury Actions. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter, a new judgment.”
The well reasoned revised final judgment recited as the basis for the increased amount of damages that the first final judgment failed to include damages for pain and suffering. The court perceived this failure to have been an error in law which he thought should be rectified by revising the judgment so as to include damages for pain and suffering. We think the trial court’s action is fully authorized by this court’s interpretation of the cited rule in Pensacola Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Costa, Fla.App., 195 So.2d 250, wherein we stated:
“ * * * In a court action, however, there will be many times when proper relief may be accorded by something far less than actual new trial, such as the taking of additional testimony, the amendment of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or the judgment.”
An interpretation of the cited rule in a manner consistent with the pronouncements of this court in th.e above case requires af-firmance of the revised final judgment herein.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Azqueriz, 485 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…. The trial court found in its amended final judgment that: “the Final Judgment previously entered was in error in view of State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 [(Fla. 2d DCA 1981) ], ... additional evidence [was] not required,” citing Scott v. Cummings, 238 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), and Pensacola Chrysler-Plymouth v. Costa, 195 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 204 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1967), and, having reviewed the transcript of the final hearing, “the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources […
Authorities Cited
- Pensacola Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Costa, 195 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)