Case Name: Don S.E. SHALHUB, Appellant, v. ANDREWS ROOFING & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-09-06
Citations: 530 So. 2d 1052
Docket Number: No. 88-266
Parties: Don S.E. SHALHUB, Appellant, v. ANDREWS ROOFING & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 530
Pages: 1052–1053

Head Matter:
Don S.E. SHALHUB, Appellant, v. ANDREWS ROOFING & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
No. 88-266.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 6, 1988.
Lionel Barnet, Miami, for appellant.
Barney Avchen, Hialeah, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a complaint seeking damages for breach of contract in the negligent inspection of a residence the plaintiff was contemplating buying. There was a jury verdict for the plaintiff of $22,577.28. The trial court entered a remittitur down to $5,000. There was no provision for acceptance of the remittitur or a new trial on damages only. The appellant contends, first that the trial court should not have entered a remittitur. We find no error on this point. De la Vallina v. De la Vallina, 90 Fla. 905, 107 So. 339 (1926); Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 281 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); .Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987).
The appellant secondly contends that the trial court erred in not giving him the option of accepting the remittitur or having a new trial limited to the issue of damages. We agree. Bom v. Goldstein, 450 So.2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987). Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order giving the plaintiff therein a time certain to either accept the remittitur, or have a new trial on the issue of damages only.
Reversed and remanded with directions.