Opinion ID: 1140735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether this Court should order a remittitur of the award in this case.

Text: ¶ 45. As to damages, Circuit Judge Howorth considered a motion to remit the verdict and concluded: [t]he jury's verdict . . . seemed to be a lot of money to me; but if I correctly instructed the jury on the elements of their damages and if the jury was entitled to consider once they arrived at a conclusion about liability, considered the elements that I instructed them on, I can't second-guess them, don't have the authority to do so, don't want to do so. It's the jury's job to establish the value of the loss and they've done so and I cannot say the amount of the verdict is such to justify the Court granting the motion to remit the verdict. (Emphasis added). ¶ 46. Miss.Code Ann. Section 11-1-55 states, in part: [t]he supreme court or any other court of record in a case in which money damages were awarded may overrule a motion for new trial or affirm on direct or cross appeal, upon condition of an additur or remittitur, if the court finds that the damages are excessive or inadequate for the reason that the jury or trier of facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. Miss.Code Ann. Section 11-1-55 (Rev. 2002). This Court has stated that [a]bsent either of these findings, the trial court abuses its discretion[,] in ordering a remittitur. State Highway Commission of Miss. v. Warren, 530 So.2d 704, 707 (Miss. 1988) (quoting McIntosh v. Deas, 501 So.2d 367, 369-70 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 47. Fitch initially admits that the verdict was based on [Valentine's] testimony concerning the distress caused by the breakup of his marriage and . . . that expert testimony is not required to prove such elements. (Emphasis added). Nonetheless, he argues that: [Valentine] suffered no economic loss in this case that was quantified with certainty sufficient to support the award. . . . Such a verdict is so obviously excessive as to demonstrate without further argument, bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. The verdict should be set aside. . . . ¶ 48. Valentine responds that the jury verdict was unanimous and that [t]he evidence presented by [Valentine] supported the jury's finding that [he] suffered a loss of consortium and affection, and mental and emotional distress because of [Fitch's] wrongful acts. Specifically, he argues that: [t]he proof established that [Valentine] suffered not only from the alienation of Sandra's affection, but the damages and losses he sustained as a result of his marital household divided. [Valentine] continues to suffer from the effects of not only losing the affection of Sandra, but also from the effects of losing [K.V.] who he thought was his daughter and who he raised as his daughter and from losing his right to be a full time father of his son, [J.V.], all as a result of [Fitch's] wrongful and intentional acts. Furthermore, [i]f there was bias or prejudice, the punitive verdict would have been much larger, particularly when [Fitch's] list of assets reflected aggregate assets of at least [$18,639,750]. ¶ 49. The trial judge's decision on the denial or acceptance of an additur or remittitur is reviewed by this Court for abuse of discretion. Ross-King-Walker, Inc. v. Henson, 672 So.2d 1188, 1193-94 (Miss.1996). The evidence in this case, viewed in the light most favorable, Poole, 908 So.2d at 726, to Valentine establishes that Valentine lost: his home; [24] physical custody of J.V.; [25] his marriage and the society, companionship, aid, services, support and other components of affection and consortium attached thereto; and K.V., the child he believed to be, and raised as, his daughter. As the circuit judge found, the jury establishes the value of the loss suffered by Valentine. They determined he was entitled to $642,000 in actual damages and $112,500 in punitive damages, and the judge concluded that the amount of the verdict did not justify remittitur. There being no evidence that either (1) the jury or trier of fact was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or (2) the . . . damages were contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence[,] Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Bolden, 854 So.2d 1051, 1058 (Miss.2003), this Court finds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying remittitur and the jury verdict should be affirmed.