MODE, INC., AND REGENCY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARDRIVES COMPANY, APPELLEE; HARDRIVES COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. MODE, INC., AND REGENCY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment and orders on appeal except the determination as to interest.
Because competent substantial evidence exists to support the judgment entered below, we find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial to Mode, Inc. We also find no error in the admission of evidence at trial.
As to the post-verdict proceedings, we affirm the determination of attorney’s fees but reverse the determination as to prejudgment interest. Hardrives is entitled to interest from the earliest date that payment was properly demanded from Mode, Inc. before judgment. For the major part of damages recovered, that date was the date of filing a claim of lien. On remand we direct the trial court to utilize the existing record to award interest from the earliest date reflected in the record that claim for payment was made, and to award interest accordingly.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baez v. Padron, 715 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ected to and well grounded in appellate review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.200(e); see also Seal Prods, v. Mansfield, 705 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Van Den Boom v. YLB Invs., Inc., 687 So. 2d 964, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Graham v. Lomar Indus., 583 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McNair v. Pavlakos/McNair Dev. Co., 576 So. 2d 933, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, in the absence of an adequate record of the proceedings below, we cannot resolve the issues raised in this appeal. See Applegate v. Barnett…