STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
INTERSTATE HOTELS CORP., #105, ETC., 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 court held that prejudgment interest is not recoverable on an award of attorneys' fees in an eminent domain case.
The trial judge awarded prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees in an eminent domain case, departing from existing appellate precedent. The appellate …
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 Appellate Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The issue in this case is the entitlement to prejudgment interest on an award of attorneys’ fees in an eminent domain case. Although the trial judge was, under Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992), not free to depart from the only District Court of Appeal decision on point, State, Department of Transportation v. Brouwer’s Flowers, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which holds that there is no such entitlement, she did so anyway. In sharp contrast, we are entitled to depart from that decision, but, because we entirely agree with it, do not.1 See also Boulis v. Department of Transp., 709 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(prejudgment interest on costs not recoverable).2
Accordingly, the award of prejudgment interest below is
Reversed.
. Even if, as we hold it is not, prejudgment interest could be awarded under some circumstances, it was unavailable on the facts of this case under the holding of Lee v. Wells Fargo Armored Services, 707 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1998).
. We do not share the Fifth District’s view that there is anything wrong with this holding, and cannot in any event conceive that it involves an issue of any public importance whatever. Therefore, unlike Boulis, we make no certification to the Supreme Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seminole Cnty. v. Boyle Inv. Co., 719 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…he amount of the fees. The delay time between those events is not attributable to appellant in this case. See also Hartleb v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 711 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State of Florida, Dep’t of Transp. v. Interstate Hotels Corp., 709 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The award of interest is reversed. [*1005] AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. GRIFFIN, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- LEE v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. & Travelers Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Brouwer's Flowers, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Slatter v. State, 709 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Gus Boulis v. Dep't OF Transp., 709 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)