469 So. 2d 844 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1985
We find no merit in any of the contentions raised by plaintiff Nunzio Fa-zio in this appeal save one, namely, that the trial court, in effect, refused to exercise its discretion when ruling on appellant’s motion for new trial. At the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for new trial, the trial court stated:
“THE COURT: You can amend, but I made it a policy that I don’t grant new trials unless something brand new has happened since the trial.
If you are going on the basis of what took place at the trial, I don ⅞ grant a new trial because I heard it, I ruled.
Anything you disagree with, take an appeal. No bad feelings about it at all.”
R. 225 (emphasis added).
Although a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for new trial, see Cloud v. Fallís, 110 So.2d 669 (Fla.1959); Ford v. Robinson, 403 So.2d 1379 (Fla. 4th
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to exercise its discretion in ruling on the plaintiffs motion for new trial. If the said motion is denied, the final judgment shall be re-entered; if the said motion is granted, a new trial shall be ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART, J., concur.
HENDRY, J., dissents.