RANDALL L. LESHIN AND RANDALL L. LESHIN, P.A., PETITIONERS,
v.
NANCY KAY DAILEY, RESPONDENT
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.
Leshin sought mandamus to compel a trial court to order disbursement of interest accumulated on funds held in trust pending appeal of an attorney's lien dispute. The court granted the mandamus petition, holding that ordering disbursement of prejudgment interest on liquidated damages is a ministerial duty requiring no discretion.
Mandamus is appropriate because ordering disbursement of prejudgment interest on liquidated damages is purely a ministerial duty requiring no exercise of judicial discretion. The court directed the trial court to order disbursement of the retained interest plus interest earned thereon.
[1] Mandamus is appropriate to compel a trial court to perform a ministerial duty that involves no discretion and is directed by law.
[2] A trial court's duty to disburse interest on a liquidated damages award is ministerial when the amount of interest is a mere mathematical computation.
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“The duty required through mandamus must be ministerial in nature; there must be no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance required must be directed by law.”
Establishes the legal standard for mandamus relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeshin obtained a $250,000 attorney's lien judgment against Dailey. Dailey appealed and Sorgini, Dailey's counsel, held the lien amount in an interest…
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 Disbursement Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
HAZOURI, J.
Randall L. Leshin, Esquire, and Randall L. Leshin, P.A., petitions this court for writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to disburse certain funds, which were held in a trust account by respondent, Nancy Kay Dailey’s former counsel, Robert C. Sorgini. We grant the petition for mandamus.
In prior litigation, Randall L. Leshin, Esquire, filed an attorney’s lien against Nancy K. Dailey and the trial court ordered that Leshin be paid on his lien in the amount of $250,000. Dailey appealed and the trial court permitted Dailey’s attorney, Robert C. Sorgini, to hold the lien amount in an interest bearing trust account pending the outcome of the appeal. This court decided the appeal in Leshin’s favor. See Dailey v. Leshin, 747 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (Table).
As a result of the mandate in Dailey, supra, on September 1, 1999, Leshin filed a motion for disbursement including interest. On September 9, 1999, the trial court granted the motion, but ordered that any disputes concerning interest would be resolved at a subsequent hearing. After receiving the September 9th order, Sorgini disbursed the $250,000 to Leshin but retained possession of the $4,350.05 accumulated interest and refused to disburse to Leshin the interest earned on the funds. Thereafter, on September 21,1999, Leshin filed a renewed motion for disbursement of interest seeking the accumulated interest which the trial court denied.
The duty required through mandamus must be ministerial in nature; there must be no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance required must be directed by law. Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Solomon v. Sanitarians’ Registration Bd., 155 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1963)), rev. denied, 684 So. 2d 1353 (Fla.1996). The judgment of $250,000 is liquidated damages and, therefore, Leshin is entitled to interest on that liquidated amount until paid. Liquidated damages became certain upon entry of the judgment of the lien and computation of the prejudgment interest is merely a mathematical computation. There is no finding of fact needed. Thus, it is purely a ministerial duty of the trial judge to add the appropriate amount of the interest to the principal amount of the damages awarded. See Argonaut Ins. Co., et al. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985). Hence, since it is merely a ministerial act, mandamus is appropriate and we hereby direct the trial court to enter an order directing the disbursement of the interest retained plus the interest earned thereon.
STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arleen Hansen Carlson v. Jeflis Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 904 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…dmin. 2.050(f). Although a trial judge may sometimes be required to make additional decisions or exercise some manner of discretion in entering a final judgment following a verdict, in many cases the act is purely ministerial. Cf. Leshin v. Dailey, 840 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding computation of interest on liquidated damages was ministerial act that was appropriate basis for mandamus relief). In this case, the trial court was required to perform the mathematical calculation to determine prejudgme…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- The Town OF Manalapan v. Morton Rechler and Beverly Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Solomon v. Sanitarians' Registration Bd. of the State of Fla., 155 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1963)