Short answer. The trial court may set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial on just terms, or it may simply deny the motion. If it finds the damages excessive or the ruling contrary to the evidence or law, it may instead just amend the judgment.

What the law says

The trial court may set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial, upon such terms as may be just, or may deny the motion. If the court finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment or final order accordingly.

Rule 37, Section 3 — Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration. Read the full provision →

Two starting options: grant a new trial, or deny the motion

Faced with a motion for new trial or reconsideration, the trial court's two basic choices under Section 3 are to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial upon such terms as may be just, or to deny the motion outright and let the original judgment stand. Which of these the court chooses depends on whether it agrees that the grounds raised in the motion actually justify reopening the case.

A third path: amending instead of a full retrial

The rule also gives the court a narrower option for a narrower problem. If it finds that excessive damages have been awarded, or that the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or the law, it may simply amend the judgment or final order accordingly, without having to order an entirely new trial. This is meant for situations where the underlying record is sound but the figure awarded, or a particular legal conclusion, needs correcting.

Why the distinction matters

Not every defect in a judgment requires redoing the trial from the ground up. Where the real problem is the amount awarded, or a mismatch between the judgment and the evidence or the law, amendment is the more proportionate and efficient remedy, while a full new trial is reserved for situations that genuinely call for reopening the proceedings themselves, such as newly discovered evidence or serious irregularities in how the original trial was conducted.

The denial option matters too

Section 3 also confirms the court can simply deny the motion outright, letting the original judgment stand unchanged. This third possibility matters because it underscores that neither a new trial nor an amendment is automatic just because a motion was filed — the court still has to be persuaded that the grounds raised actually justify disturbing the judgment before it grants any relief at all.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.