CHELSEA TITLE & GUARANTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND MARTIN COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
VIRGINIA A. TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CARL H. TURNER, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial court's calculation of stock sale proceeds and the awarded interest rate were incorrect.
The appeal concerned the calculation of proceeds from a stock sale between co-owners of a corporation and the interest awarded on that sum. The trial …
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 Fair Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
This appeal protests the mathematics of a judgment calculating the buy out proceeds of a sale by one stockholder to another. It also protests an interest award. We reverse on both issues.
We will not embark on a long dissertation of the facts of this case and intend only to amend the mathematics. The trial court awarded a bottom line figure, for the sale of corporate stock by the selling stockholder, in the sum of $37,500. In so doing the court found three things:
(1) That the seller of 50% of the stock in a corporation to the other 50% stockholder was entitled to one-half of the fair market value of the corporation;
(2) That the fair market value of the entire corporation was $75,000; and
(3) That the same seller personally owed, and was required to pay, the corporation $10,000 and then as half owner thereof be credited for half of that sum owed.
We find this language plain and unambiguous. Therefore, the seller shall receive $37,500 plus $5,000 or a total of $42,500. In turn said seller must account for the $10,-000 owed, so that the net receipt from the sale shall be $32,500, not $37,500 as calculated by the trial court.
The purchasing shareholder also contends that the trial court erred in awarding the seller a return of 10% per annum on the sum awarded. A person to whom a debt is owed is entitled not only to the payment of the principal of the debt but also to interest at the lawful rate. Parker v. Brinson Construction Co., 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1955); Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Under Section 687.01, Florida Statutes (1977), interest shall be assessed at the rate of 6% per annum.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court amending the final judgment to award prejudgment interest to the appellees at a rate of 6%.
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Posner v. Flink, 393 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…Parker’s Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. East Point Water & Sewer District, 367 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1979). If assessed, a rate of six percent is statutorily mandated. Chelsea Title & Guaranty Co. v. Turner, 389 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); § 687.01, Fla.Stat. (1979). The court below awarded to appel-lees costs for professional fees submitted by his accountant, basing its post-judgment award solely on review of the record, and observation of the accountant’s testi…
-
Parsons v. Harbor Specialty Ins. Co., 839 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…pport its position, the plaintiff relies on the general principle that “[a] person to whom a debt is owed is entitled not only to the payment of the principal of the debt but also to interest at the lawful rate.” Chelsea Title & Guar. Co. v. Turner, 389 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). See also Gallo v. Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 749 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); M.L. Cooper v. Alford, 477 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We have no quarrel with the principle, but finds its application lost in the context o…
-
Isasi v. Am. Colonial Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…5(7), Fla. Stat. (1999). In this case, the plaintiff did not allege a claim pursuant to section 624.155, but instead relied upon the common law theory that a person to whom a debt is owed is entitled to interest. Chelsea Title & Guar. Co. v. Turner, 389 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Even though the theory for pursuing interest on an unearned premium may be through either section 624.155 or the common law, section 627.7283 still defines the recovery allowable. As we stated in Parsons, section 627.7283 “does…
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)
- Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City Nat'l Bank OF Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)