LARRY NAPP, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF MILDRED NAPP, AND PHYLLIS NAPP, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
DEBORAH A. CARMAN, ESQUIRE, AS ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM FOR THE ESTATE OF MILDRED NAPP, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Liquidated Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the issues raised on the main appeal. The cross appeal concerns the issue of prejudgment interest. There can be no dispute that the claim pursued in the action below was liquidated as it dealt with ownership of two bank accounts. The pleadings contain a prayer for interest, which can only refer to prejudgment interest, as the matter of postjudgment interest is governed by statute and need not be pled. It is not material that appellees failed to raise this issue by a motion post judgment. To the extent the final judgment failed to award prejudgment interest, it was erroneous and amenable to correction on appeal. “Prejudgment interest is an element of compensatory damages.” Miller v. Reinhart, 548 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985)).
We therefore affirm as to the appeal, reverse as to the cross appeal, and remand to permit the trial court to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…Florescue & Andrews Invs., Inc., 653 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (noting “pre-judgment interest does not have to be pled, and an award of pre-judgment interest is non-discretionary once the amount of loss is ascertained”); Napp v. Carman, 576 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (noting “post-judgment interest is governed by statute and need not be pled”). Therefore, the general plea for relief contained in Appellees’ complaint was sufficient to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to enter a judgment th…
-
Tillman v. Howell, 634 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…landmark case on this subject. Prejudgment interest is an element of damages, not a cost or a fee, and its entitlement follows any award for liquidated damages. We have discussed but have never before clearly ruled on this issue. See Napp v. Carman, 576 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Otis Elevator Co. v. Scott, 551 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), disapproved on other grounds, 572 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1990). We do so now and hold that it need not be specially pled. See, e.g., Getelman v. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236 (Fl…
-
Gallo v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 749 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…amages, interest should follow as a matter of law. Florida Steel Corporation v. Adaptable Developments, Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1236 (Fla.1986)(citing to Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). See also Napp v. Carman, 576 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). Since section 517.141 of the Florida Statutes makes no mention of superseding the common law with regard to the recovery of prejudgment interest as an element of compensatory damages, we hold that the Department’s decision to c…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Miller v. Reinhart, 548 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)