WILLIAM PATRICK BREWSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
ALACHUA TIRE AND FUEL SERVICES, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1983-12-02
No. AT-245
ERVIN, C.J., JOANOS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
442 So. 2d 313 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1983)

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.

Synopsis

William Patrick Brewster, guarantor of Jerry Estopy's debt to Alachua Tire and Fuel Services, appealed a judgment against him. The appellate court affirmed the compensatory damages award but reversed the award of pre-judgment interest because the jury verdict did not conclusively determine the date from which interest should accrue.


Holding

The court affirmed the compensatory damages award and rejection of the jury instructions but reversed the pre-judgment interest award because the jury verdict did not conclusively determine the date from which interest should accrue. Pre-judgment interest is only permissible when a jury verdict conclusively determines both the exact amount due and the date from which interest can be computed.


Headnotes

[1] Documents may be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if they meet the requirements of § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. …

[2] A jury verdict for a debt is considered a liquidated claim eligible for pre-judgment interest only if it conclusively determines the exact amount due and the date from wh…

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

Key Quotes

“a jury verdict for a debt is considered the equivalent of a liquidated claim, and thus eligible for a post-trial motion seeking the assessment of pre-judgment interest, only where it conclusively detemrines the exact amount due and the date from which interest can be computed”

Establishes the legal standard for when pre-judgment interest may be awarded following a jury verdict

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Brewster guaranteed a debt owed by Jerry Estopy to Alachua Tire and Fuel Services. The trial court entered judgment against Brewster for $24,921.30 in…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

William Patrick Brewster, the guarantor of one Jerry Estopy, appeals from the trial court’s final order awarding Alachua Tire and Fuel Services, Inc., $24,921.30 in compensatory damages, $8,237.98 in additional pre-judgment interest, and $898.30 in costs. While we find no error in the trial court’s admission into evidence of certain documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat., nor in its failure to give two of Brewster’s requested jury instructions, we do agree that the trial court should not have assessed pre-judgment interest pursuant to Alachua Tire’s post-trial motion seeking such an assessment.

In Florida law, interest is allowable from the time a debt becomes due and payable. Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Further, whenever a verdict liquidates a claim and fixes it as of a prior date, interest should follow from that date. English and American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 453, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). However, a jury verdict for a debt is considered the equivalent of a liquidated claim, and thus eligible for a post-trial motion seeking the assessment of pre-judgment interest, only where it conclusively detemrines the exact amount due and the date from which interest can be computed. Vacation Prizes, at 353. In this case, there is no conclusive jury determination, such as a special verdict or finding, fixing the date at which Estopy’s debt, and hence Brewster’s debt, became due. In light of this deficiency, the award of pre-judgment interest must be stricken. The trial court’s final order is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.

ERVIN, C.J., JOANOS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw