THOMAS K. VELLEF, APPELLANT,
v.
CONTROL-O-FAX CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Dr. Thomas Vellef appealed a judgment against him for failing to pay two promissory notes to Control-O-Fax Corporation. The court reversed the award of prejudgment interest and attorney's fees because neither was supported by the promissory notes themselves, and affirmed the underlying judgment on the notes.
The court reversed both awards. Prejudgment interest could only be awarded from the date the lawsuit was filed (March 17, 1995) because no evidence established when demand for payment was first made. Attorney's fees could not be awarded because the promissory notes contained no fee provision, and Control-O-Fax did not assert a claim under the separate computer contract that did contain such a provision.
[1] Prejudgment interest is only recoverable from the date a lawsuit seeking payment on a debt is filed, absent evidence of an earlier demand for payment.
[2] An award of attorney's fees is improper when the underlying contract or statute does not contain a provision for such fees.
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“There is no contractual or statutory basis to justify these two awards, therefore we must reverse.”
Establishes the legal standard that attorney's fees and prejudgment interest require contractual or statutory support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Vellef executed two promissory notes personally in favor of Control-O-Fax Corporation. He failed to pay the notes as required. Control-O-Fax sued …
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 Contractual Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
The trial court entered final judgment in favor of appellee, Control-O-Fax Corporation, because appellant, Thomas Vellef, M.D., failed to pay two promissory notes. The judgment included an award of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. There is no contractual or statutory basis to justify these two awards, therefore we must reverse.
With regard to the assessment of prejudgment interest, Control-O-Fax concedes that the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest was improper because Control-O-Fax failed to introduce any evidence concerning the date upon which the first demand for payment was made. As a result, Control-O-Fax is only entitled to recover prejudgment interest starting from March 17, 1995, the date the lawsuit seeking payment on the notes was filed. See Minton v. Spivey, 505 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 513 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1987).
As for the issue of attorney’s fees, the promissory notes were executed by Dr. Vel-lef personally. The evidence presented at trial supports the trial court’s ruling that Dr. Vellef failed to pay Control-O-Fax as required by the terms of the notes. However, the notes did not contain a provision concerning the payment of attorney’s fees. Thus, the award of fees in Control-O-Fax’s favor cannot be supported under the terms of the notes.
Prior to trial on the promissory notes, Dr. Vellef, on behalf of his corporation, Your Family Care Center, filed a counterclaim against Control-O-Fax for breach of a contract to lease and install computer software. After raising procedural objections, both parties agreed to proceed to trial on both Control-O-Fax’s claim on the promissory note and Your Family Care Center’s claim of breach of the computer contract. The computer contract included the following attorney’s fee provision:
[I]n the event an attorney is retained to enforce this agreement, or any of its provisions, the breaching party agrees to pay the prevailing party all actual attorneys’ fees incurred, whether or not suit is actually brought and/or arbitration is demanded or had. (Emphasis added).
Control-O-Fax sued Dr. Vellef on the promissory notes but never asserted a claim that Your Family Care Center or Dr. Vellef breached the computer contract. Therefore, fees were not recoverable by Control-O-Fax under the terms of the computer contract.
The award of attorneys’ fees is reversed. The award of prejudgment interest is vacated, and this matter remanded to the trial court for recalculation of interest. With regard to the other claims of trial error, finding no error, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Minton v. Olin J. Spivey and Shirley J. Spivey, 505 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)