Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Arizona Revised Statutes AnnotatedRules of Civil Procedure for the Superior Courts of Arizona
16 A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59
Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
(1) Motion. A motion for a new trial, along with any supporting affidavits, must be filed no later than 15 days after the entry of judgment. This deadline may not be extended by stipulation or court order, except as allowed by Rule 6(b)(2). The motion may be amended at any time before the court rules on it.
(c) New Trial on the Court's Initiative or for Reasons Not in the Motion. No later than 15 days after the entry of judgment--which time may not be extended except as allowed by Rule 6(b)(2)--the court, on its own, may order a new trial for any reason set forth in Rule 59(a). After giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in the motion. In either event, the court must specify the reasons in its order.
(e) Scope of New Trial. A new trial, if granted, must be limited to the question or questions found to be in error, if separable. If a new trial is ordered solely because the damages are excessive or inadequate and if the issue of damages is separable from all other issues in the action, the verdict may be set aside only on damages, and must stand in all other respects.
(A) Generally. When a motion for new trial is based on the ground that the awarded damages are either excessive or insufficient, the court may grant the new trial conditionally if, within the time set by the court, the party adversely affected by the reduction or increase in damages files a statement accepting the amount of damages as designated by the court.
(B) Effect on Grant or Denial of New Trial. If the party adversely affected by the reduction or increase in damages files a statement as provided in Rule 59(f)(1)(A), the motion for new trial is deemed denied as of the date the statement is filed. If the party adversely affected does not file a statement, the motion for new trial is deemed granted as of the deadline specified by the court for filing the statement. No further written order is required to make an order granting or denying the new trial final. If the court's conditional order requires a reduction of or increase in damages, then the new trial may be granted only on damages, and the verdict must stand in all other respects.
(2) Effect on Appeal. If a statement of acceptance is filed by the party adversely affected by reduction or increase of damages, and the other party later files an appeal, the party filing such statement may cross-appeal and, at its election, seek review of the superior court's ruling that the awarded damages are either excessive or insufficient. If the court's ruling on damages is affirmed, the party's prior acceptance will remain in effect, unless the appeal's final disposition requires otherwise.
(2) Bond Required to Stay Execution. Execution of judgment should not be stayed unless the defendant posts a bond in double the amount of the judgment or the value of the property that is the subject of the judgment. The bond must be conditioned on the defendant's prosecution of the application for new trial and on satisfaction of the judgment in full should the court deny the application.
Added Sept. 2, 2016, effective Jan. 1, 2017.
In State v. Tucson Title, 101 Ariz. 415, 420 P.2d 286 (1966), the Arizona Supreme Court held that under the former Rule 59(i), a consent to a remittitur was binding, notwithstanding a later appeal by the moving party. Thus, the court held that the consent to the remittitur estopped the party in whose favor the judgment had been entered from taking a cross-appeal from the order. In many cases one of the primary reasons for consenting to a remittitur is the hope of thereby ending the litigation and avoiding an appeal by the moving party. If, despite the opposing party's consent to the remittitur, the moving party nevertheless perfects an appeal, the party consenting to the remittitur should have the right to cross-appeal from the order. To address this concern, Rule 59(i)(2) was amended in 1967 to provide that the party consenting to the remittitur or additur “may nonetheless cross-appeal and the perfecting of a cross-appeal shall be deemed to revoke the consent to the decrease or increase in damages.”
The 2017 amendments eliminate the provision of former Rule 59(i)(2) providing that the cross-appeal is “deemed to revoke” a cross-appealing party's consent to an additur or remittitur. Subdivision (f)(2) of the amended rule instead provides that if the court's ruling on damages is affirmed, the cross-appealing party's prior acceptance will remain in effect, unless the appeal's final disposition requires otherwise.
16 A. R. S. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 59, AZ ST RCP Rule 59
The Code of Judicial Administration is current with amendments received through 3/1/20. All other state court rules are current with amendments received through 2/15/20.
|End of Document||© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.|