MBE Rules · Civil Procedure
Remittitur and Additur
Remittitur/additur (7th Amend.)
The rule
A federal court may condition new-trial denial on the plaintiff accepting a reduced award, but additur is unconstitutional in federal court under the Seventh Amendment; states may permit both.
In plain English
Remittitur allows a court to reduce a jury's award if it is deemed excessive, while additur permits a court to increase a jury's award if it is found to be insufficient. In federal courts, remittitur is acceptable, but additur is unconstitutional due to the Seventh Amendment, which preserves the right to a jury trial. Some state courts, however, allow both practices.
Worked example
In a federal case, a jury awards the plaintiff $1 million for damages, but the judge believes this amount is excessive and offers the plaintiff the option to accept $600,000 instead. The plaintiff agrees to the reduced amount, and the court denies the motion for a new trial. The outcome is that the plaintiff receives $600,000.
Memory hook
Remittitur reduces, but additur is a no-go in federal court!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students confuse remittitur and additur, especially in state versus federal contexts. Be careful not to assume both are available in federal court.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve a jury's award and ask whether a judge can alter it, testing knowledge of the constitutional limits on additur in federal cases.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.