CENTRAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC., AND SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SPECTRUM CONTRACTING CO., 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 Fourth District reversed a trial court's award of postjudgment interest on prejudgment interest, holding that compound interest is impermissible under Florida law.
Postjudgment interest may not accrue on prejudgment interest awarded in a judgment because such an award constitutes impermissible compound interest.
[1] Postjudgment interest may not be awarded on prejudgment interest included in a judgment, as such an award constitutes impermissible compound interest under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“interest may not accrue on a sum which is itself interest”
Court citing LaFaye v. Presser for the principle that compound interest is impermissible
A subcontractor brought an action against a general contractor and its bonding company. The trial court rendered a final judgment awarding damages, 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interest On Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this action by a subcontractor the trial court rendered a final judgment awarding damages against appellants, the general contractor and its bonding company. That final judgment included an increment for prejudgment interest on sums awarded to appellee and provided for postjudgment interest on all sums due, including this increment. We hold that this was error. In doing so, we apply the reasoning enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court, at least by implication, in In re Amendments to Florida Small Claims Rules, 601 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla.1992), and follow the lead of the First District in LaFaye v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (interest may not accrue on a sum which is itself interest), and United Svcs. Auto. Ass’n v. Smith, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (it is error to order interest on interest awarded in judgment because it amounts to an invalid award of compound interest). See also Higley South, Inc. v. Quality Eng’rd Installation, 18 Fla. L. Weekly D354, 356, 1993 WL 10837 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 22, 1993); Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Commercio, S.A., C.A., 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In adopting this rule we necessarily certify conflict with the Fifth District which has held to the contrary. See Peavey v. Dyer, 605 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Indian River Colony Club, Inc. v. Schopke Constr. & Eng’g, Inc., 619 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In all other respects we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996)…nd the decisions of the other district courts in LaFaye v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Commer-cio, S.A., C.A., 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and Central Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), because the Second District in this case indicated that it was correct not to award interest upon interest. We read this to be an indication that the Second District would follow LaFaye, Perez Sandoval, and Central Constructors…
-
S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…It is error to award interest on interest and, accordingly, we reverse only that part of the final judgment which awards postjudgment interest on the amount found due as prejudgment interest. See Cent. Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). FRANK, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PATTERSON, 33., concur.…
-
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…and Financial Services, Inc.; Newman-Crane and Associates Ins., Inc.; and Huston Crane, individually. . .See, e.g., S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City of Tampa, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Central Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Commercio, S.A., C.A., 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); LaFaye v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Guy E. Smith and his wife, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- LaFAYE v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Indian River Colony Club, Inc. v. Schopke Constr. & Eng'g, Inc., 619 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Sandoval v. Banco de Commercio, S.A., 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- C.M.E. v. State, 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules, 601 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1992)