BUTLER PLAZA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, NOW KNOWN AS GULFSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ALLEN TROVILLION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Butler Plaza retained Allen Trovillion, Inc. as general contractor to build a shopping center. After a bench trial, the court awarded damages to both parties but improperly calculated interest on Trovillion's award from the completion dates rather than from the dates of demand for payment. The appellate court affirmed the damages but reversed and remanded the interest calculation.
Interest on contract awards should run from the date payment is due, which for extra contract work is the date of demand or request for payment by the contractor, not the date of completion. The damages awards to both parties are affirmed, but the interest awards must be recalculated from the demand dates rather than the completion dates.
[1] In a contract action, interest is properly awarded from the date the debt was due.
[2] Payment for work performed pursuant to a written contract is due after completion and submission of a payment request.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In a contract action, it is proper to award interest from the date the debt was due.”
Establishes the basic rule governing interest calculation in contract disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler Plaza hired Allen Trovillion, Inc. as general contractor to build a shopping center. Trovillion performed work both within and outside the scop…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action For Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Butler Plaza, Inc., the appellant, retained Allen Trovillion, Inc., the appellee, to build a shopping center. As general contractor, Trovillion. performed work outside of the scope of the parties’ written contract. Tro-villion sued Butler to obtain payment for the extra work, plus interest. Butler coun terclaimed for defective work on the contract work.
After a non-jury trial, the court awarded damages to both parties, and it allowed Trovillion interest on its awards from December 15,1972 for work done on the Wool-co store and from January 1, 1973 for work done on a manhole referred to as “Manhole D-13.” Butler appealed and Trovillion cross-appealed. We affirm the damages award to each, because the record adequately supports the lower court’s judgment.1 However, the awards of interest to Trovil-lion were improperly calculated from the dates of completion.
In a contract action, it is proper to award interest from the date the debt was due. Bryan & Sons Corp. v. Klefstad, 265 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Parker v. Brinson Construction Company, 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1955). This rule presupposes there is a liquidated amount owing at a specific time. Payment from Butler to Trovillion for the work performed pursuant to their written contract was “due” after the work was complete, and after a payment request (certified by the architect) was submitted to Butler. Similarly, payment for work done beyond the scope of the written contract was due after it was completed and after demand or request for payment by Trovil-lion was made.2 See Norin Mortgage Company v. Wasco, Inc., 343 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). For “extra” contract work, particularly where no set amount was agreed to by the parties, completion of the work alone could not make the sums “due” because the obligor (here Butler) had no idea what amount to pay, nor when, absent a demand or request for payment.
The extra work done on the Woolco store was completed on December 15, 1972, but no demand for payment was made until May 1, 1974. The extra work on manhole D-13 was completed on January 1, 1973, but no demand for payment was made until October 2, 1973. Interest should only run from the dates of demand. Accordingly, the interest portion of the judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of recalculating the award of interest in a manner consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Darden, 338 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Davis Parks, Inc. v. Poole Engineering Co. of Ft. Walton Beach, 255 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 371(8) (1963); 13 Am. Jur.2d Building & Construction Contracts § 18 (1964). See Moon v. Wilson, 100 Fla. 791, 130 So. 25 (1930); 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 199 (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 403 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…DCA 1977). In this contract action, the award of prejudgment interest is also affirmed upon the finding of the trial judge that demand for a sum due and owing was made on February 2, 1976. See, e. g., Butler Plaza, Inc. v. Allen Trovillion, Inc., 389 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Huntley v. Baya, 136 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Affirmed.…
-
Jones Prods. Corp. v. SAC Constr. Co., Inc., 495 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…d to prejudgment interest on the binding authority of Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985), and that the interest should be calculated from the day of demand for payment, Butler Plaza, Inc. v. Allen Trovillion, Inc., 389 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Based on those authorities, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial to grant prejudgment interest from the date of demand. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
Icard v. Henderson, 455 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…award prejudgment interest on the amount due for the changes. We agree and reverse in this regard. Prejudgment interest is owed from the date of the seller’s demand upon the buyer to pay for the changes. Butler Plaza, Inc. v. Allen Trovillion, Inc., 389 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Seller argues that such interest was owed from the date of closing which was agreed upon by the parties to be August 1, 1982. A letter from seller to buyer, itemizing charges for the changes, refers to the then forthcoming closi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. Brinson Constr. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1955)
- Bryan & Sons Corp. v. Sivert Klefstad, 265 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Moon v. Graham L. Wilson, 100 Fla. 791 (Fla. 1930)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Darden, 338 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Norin Mortg. Corp. v. Wasco, Inc., 343 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Davis Parks, Inc. v. Poole Eng'g Co. OF Fort Walton Beach, 255 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)