Section 3.34 Failure to Specify Reasons for New Trial

• Library: App Ct Prac 2015 Supp

A. (§3.34) Failure to Specify Reasons for New Trial

A trial court is required to specify its reasons for granting a new trial. The purpose for requiring specificity is to define the reasons for granting a new trial and thus limit the issues cognizable on appeal. Hiers v. Lemley, 834 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo. banc 1992). If the court fails to specify its reasons, the appellate court:

· may not indulge in any presumption that the new trial was granted on discretionary grounds;

· presumes that the motion for new trial was granted erroneously;

· places the burden on the respondent to demonstrate on the record that there was reversible error; and

· confines the respondent to error specified in both its motion for new trial and its brief.

Northeast Mo. Elec. Power Coop. v. Todd, 401 S.W.2d 161, 162 (Mo. App. E.D. 1966).

The purpose of Rule 78.03, requiring the order of the trial court to specify grounds on which a new trial is granted, is to define and limit issues on appeal and thereby conserve judicial and legal time, promote clarity, and establish reasonable limits to the scope of judicial decisions by confining the appeal to specific issues. Hightower v. Hightower, 590 S.W.2d 99, 103 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979). The effect of granting a new trial without specifying the grounds is that the burden of proving reversible error shifts from the appellant bringing the appeal to the respondent to support the trial court’s action and to rebut the presumption of reversible error. Vaughn v. Ripley, 446 S.W.2d 475, 479 (Mo. App. W.D. 1969); Haas Baking Co. v. Luzio, 512 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Mo. App. E.D. 1974); Jenkins v. McShane, 539 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Mo. App. S.D. 1976). In such an instance, it is presumed that the trial court erroneously granted the motion for new trial, and the burden falls on the respondent to show otherwise. Rule 84.05(c). In the absence of specification of the basis for granting a new trial, the appellate court will not presume that the new trial was granted on discretionary grounds. C.M. v. K.M., 878 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994). The respondent, however, on appeal is not limited to the grounds specified in the court’s order granting a new trial, but the respondent may urge in support any other grounds properly presented and preserved in the motion for new trial and appeal. Kirst v. Clarkson Constr. Co., 395 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Mo. App. S.D. 1965).

A court granting a new trial on specified grounds in effect overrules all other grounds in the motion for new...