Opinion ID: 1925532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extension of Time on Motions After Verdict.

Text: The trial court ordered a new trial unless the plaintiff exercised the option to accept damages reduced from the jury's award of $42,415.77 to $12,443.02. The order of the trial court was made on April 11, 1963, which was over sixty days after the verdict was rendered. The first question to be resolved on this appeal is whether the trial court retained the right to rule on a motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Sec. 270.49 (1), Stats., provides in part that such a motion must be made and heard within sixty days after the verdict is rendered. The appellant points out that the order which was entered by the trial court on February 6, 1963 (fifty-six days after the verdict was rendered), was effected without notice and without cause shown by affidavit. It is the appellant's contention that under sec. 269.45 (1), Stats., the cause for the extension of time must be shown by affidavit. She also contends that the entitlement to notice is inherent in due process.  In our opinion, the order extending the time for deciding motions after verdict was properly made by the trial court. The matter is governed not by sec. 269.45 (1), Stats., but rather by sec. 270.49 (1). The latter statute permits the trial court to enter such order ex parte and without an affidavit. Sec. 270.49 (1) does require that cause be evidenced, but this can be done without the use of the word cause or any other special terminology. So long as the order reflects the reasons for the entry of the order and so long as such reasons fairly constituted cause, the extension order qualifies under sec. 270.49 (1), even though it is made without notice and even though it is not based upon an affidavit. Harweger v. Wilcox (1962), 16 Wis. (2d) 526, 532, 114 N. W. (2d) 818. The appellant relies on Boyle v. Larzelere (1944), 245 Wis. 152, 13 N. W. (2d) 528, which case contains language that cannot be harmonized with our holding in Harweger, supra . The Harweger Case followed the Boyle Case, and, so far as they are in conflict, the Boyle Case is deemed modified by the Harweger Case. The extension of time to decide motions after verdict is a matter of procedure. Briggson v. Viroqua (1953), 264 Wis. 40, 45, 58 N. W. (2d) 543, suggests that notice is not a right of due process in matters which are purely procedural.