ACA Brandon, Inc. v. Hooyman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ACA BRANDON, INC., and ACA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Appellants, v. PAULA K. HOOYMAN and KEVIN B. HOOYMAN, her Husband, Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2D01-5479 Opinion filed August 23, 2002. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Dick Greco, Jr., Judge. Scot E. Samis and Robert J. Lancaster of Abbey, Adams, Byelick, Kieran, Mueller & Lancaster, L.L.P., St. Petersburg, for Appellants Claude H. Tison, Jr., of The Swope Law Group, Tampa, for Appellees. WHATLEY, Judge. ACA Brandon, Inc., and ACA Management Systems, Inc., appeal the order granting Paula K. Hooyman and Kevin B. Hooyman a new trial pursuant to the Hooymans supplemental and amended motion for new trial. We reverse because the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for supplemental motions for new trial or for motions for rehearing of orders denying motions for new trial. Once the trial court denied the Hooymans original motion for new trial, it had no authority to rehear the matter. Furthermore, even if the rules of procedure did provide for supplemental motions for new trial, the Hooymans motion did not set forth sufficient grounds for the granting of a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting new trial and remand with directions for the trial court to enter a judgment on the jury s verdict in the trial of this matter. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.