FL. R. Civ. P. 1.535
Committee Notes
2019 Adoption. Subdivision (a) defines a “proper motion” as referenced in section 768.74, Florida Statutes. A motion that does not provide for an amount that the movant believes was proven by the evidence at trial is not a proper motion. Hendry v. Zelaya , 841 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003 ).
Subdivision (b) is to assist the appellate court in its review of the order granting remittitur or additur. Moore v. Perry, 944 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006 ) (finding the order deficient for lack of specific reasons for granting the order, but finding sufficient support in comments by the court at the hearing). See also Kovacs v. Venetian Sedan Service, Inc., 108 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959 ) (indicating that an order granting remittitur must state the specific reasons for remittitur because it will convert to an order granting new trial if not accepted); Adams v. Saavedra , 65 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011 ).
Subdivision (c) provides for a time limit to exercise the right to elect a new trial established in Waste Management, Inc. v. Mora , 940 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2006).