METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
BOUTERSE, PEREZ & FABREGAS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals a trial court's award of prejudgment interest in a breach of contract action involving architectural services. The court reversed the prejudgment interest award, finding the trial court erroneously calculated interest from April 1, 1982, without determining when each progress payment under the contract would have actually become due.
Prejudgment interest in cases involving progress payments must be calculated by determining when each progress payment would have become due if the contract had been performed, calculating interest on each payment from its respective due date, and totaling the interest owed on all payments. The trial court erred in awarding interest from a single date prior to when any payment actually became due.
[1] Prejudgment interest on a liquidated claim is to be awarded from the date when payment is due.
[2] In contract disputes requiring progress payments, prejudgment interest must be calculated based on the specific dates each progress payment would have become due.
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“Prejudgment interest is to be awarded, in the case of a liquidated claim, from the date when payment is due.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that prejudgment interest accrues from the date payment becomes due, not from an arbitrary earlier date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetropolitan Dade County contracted with Bouterse, Perez and Fabregas Architects Planners, Inc. for architectural services, with the contract providin…
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 Progress Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Metropolitan Dade County (the County) appeals the award of prejudgment interest in a contract dispute. Finding error in the calculation of the award, we reverse for a determination of when progress payments were due so that an accurate award of prejudgment interest can be made.1
The County entered into a contract for architectural services with Bouterse, Perez and Fabregas, Architects Planners, Inc. (BPF). The agreement called for progress payments as certain phases of the project were completed. In March 1982, before work had begun on the contract, the County informed BPF that a portion of the contract had been awarded to another architectural firm. BPF sued for breach of contract and obtained a judgment for $279,-249.81.2 The trial court, finding that the breach occurred in March 1982, awarded prejudgment interest from April 1, 1982, in the amount of $73,315.31.
Prejudgment interest is to be awarded, in the case of a liquidated claim, from the date when payment is due. Jockey Club, Inc. v. Bleemer, Levine & Associates Architects & Designers, Inc., 413 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Parker v. Brinson Construction Co., 78 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla.1955); Brooks v. School Board of Brevard County, 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Since the contract in question calls for progress payments, the total amount of prejudgment interest can only be accurately computed by: (1) determining when each progress payment would have become due if the contract had been performed as agreed; (2) calculating the interest on each progress payment from the date it would have become due; and (3) totaling the interest due on each progress payment.3 Edward Klein Truck & Heavy Equipment Co. v. Pitman Manufacturing Co., 512 F.Supp. 101 (W.D.Pa.1981); Jarvis v. Jarvis, 27 Ariz.App. 266, 553 P. 2d 1251 (Ct.App.1976); Recordex Corp. v. Southeastern Metal Products, Inc., 147 Ga.App. 79, 248 S.E. 2d 159 (Ct.App.1978); Dryden v. Dryden, 205 Neb. 666, 289 N.W. 2d 525 (1980); Goodwin v. Upper Crust of Wyoming, Inc., 624 P. 2d 1192 (Wyo.1981). Awarding prejudgment interest from a time prior to the date any payment became due provides BPF with a windfall and unjustly penalizes the County. See Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 151 So. 2d 879, 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Accordingly, the award of prejudgment interest is reversed. The case is remanded for determination of the proper amount of prejudgment interest.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
. The County also raised two other issues which we find to be without merit. Consequently, the case is affirmed in all respects, but that discussed above.
. The amount of the judgment itself was not appealed and is not before us.
. We note that for purposes of calculating the prejudgment interest any portion of the judgment which represents future progress payments earns interest only from the date of judgment. Also, the trial judge should be conscious of the amendment to section 687.01, Florida Statutes (1981), which was effective July 1, 1982, and which changed the statutory rate of interest from six per cent to twelve per cent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
LaFAYE v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…rding prejudgment interest from a time prior to the date any payment became due provides the prevailing party with a windfall and unjustly prejudices the losing party. Metropolitan Dade County v. Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas Architects Planners, Inc., 463 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Where payment is dependent upon the occurrence of conditions precedent, payment is not due before satisfaction of those conditions precedent unless performance thereof is waived or excused by the conduct of the parties. E.g.…
-
Mark and Barbara Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc., 652 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…urance v. May Plumbing, 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). Prejudgment interest must be awarded, where the claim is liquidated, from the date when payment of the claim is due. Metropolitan Dade County v. Bouterse, Per [*389] ez, & Fabregas Architects, Inc., 463 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An arbitration award is akin to a verdict, see U.S.A.A. v. Smith, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and once an arbitration award is confirmed by the court it becomes, like a verdict, the judgment of that court and interest on…
-
Nat'l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. v. Ira Kirkland, 678 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ed to compensate a plaintiffs “out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses” from the date of such losses. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985). In Metropolitan Dade County v. Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas Architects Planners, Inc., 463 So. 2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), the Third District Court explained the correct application of prejudgment interest in cases involving a series of payments consisting of some past due and others due in the future: Prejudgment interest is to be awarded, in the ea…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Jockey Club, Inc. v. Bleemer, 413 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Klein v. Newburger, 151 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Brooks v. The Sch. Bd. OF Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)