ROBERT MICHNAL, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM COAST DEVELOPMENT, INC., 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.
On remand from a previous appeal, the trial court entered final judgment in Palm Coast's favor in a breach of contract and lien foreclosure case without verifying which interest rate (statutory 11% or contractual 12%) was used in calculating pre-judgment interest. The appellate court reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to hold a hearing to determine the correct rate and recalculate if necessary.
The successor trial judge erred by entering judgment without first holding a hearing to verify the correct pre-judgment interest rate. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine the correct rate and recalculate pre-judgment interest if necessary. The reference to the additional $30,378.82 was struck as surplusage.
[1] A successor trial judge must verify the rate used by a predecessor judge in calculating pre-judgment interest before entering judgment on remand.
[2] A trial court errs by adopting a proposed final judgment over objections without holding a hearing to determine the correct rate of pre-judgment interest when counsel can…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with Michnal that it was error for the successor trial judge to enter judgment on remand without first verifying the rate used by the predecessor judge in calculating pre-judgment interest.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court erred by not verifying the interest rate used.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalm Coast Development sued Robert Michnal for breach of a construction contract and foreclosed on a lien. The original trial court awarded Palm Coast…
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 Interest Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
Palm Coast Development, Inc. (Palm Coast) prevailed against Robert Michnal (Michnal) in its action for breach of a construction contract and foreclosure of a lien. The trial court awarded Palm Coast damages and attorneys’ fees, as well as pre-judgment interest. The court also awarded an additional $30,378.82, which was recoverable only against Michnal. On appeal, this court affirmed the lien foreclosure, reversed the breach of contract claim, in part, for remittitur, and reversed the attorneys’ fees award, in part. See Michnal v. Palm Coast Dev., Inc., 842 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), rev. denied, 882 So. 2d 385 (Fla.2004).
On remand, a successor trial judge entered the final judgment under review here. We agree with Michnal that it was error for the successor trial judge to enter judgment on remand without first verifying the rate used by the predecessor judge in calculating pre-judgment interest. At the hearing on remand, neither counsel could recall whether the predecessor judge had utilized the statutory (11%) or the contractual (12%) rate of interest in calculating pre-judgment interest. Palm Coast’s counsel prepared a proposed final judgment utilizing the contractual rate, and the trial court adopted the judgment over Michnal’s objections. Under the circumstances, the successor judge should have held a hearing to determine the correct rate instead of simply accepting the final judgment proposed by appellee. Thus, we reverse and remand for that purpose and for any re-calculation of the award that may result. Also on remand, the trial court shall strike the reference to an additional $30,378.82 as such language is surplusage and does not affect the judgment. All other issues are affirmed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED in part; AFFIRMED in part.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Michnal v. Palm Coast Dev., Inc., 842 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Kelly v. Cuevas, 882 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2004)