PACE PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY, INC., THE PACE WATER SYSTEM, INC., AND AMPAM COMMERCIAL SOUTHEAST, INC., F/D/B/A NELSON MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROY JONES AND KAREN JONES, 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.
Pace Property Finance Authority and related defendants appealed an order awarding damages for trespass and breach of contract, while the property owners cross-appealed. The court reversed the trial court's partial denial of prejudgment interest, holding that prejudgment interest should have been awarded on the full measure of compensatory damages where a vested property right was lost and the date of loss was ascertainable from evidence.
Prejudgment interest should have been awarded on the full measure of compensatory damages. The absence of out-of-pocket expenditures and the lack of a special verdict fixing the date of obligation are not factors that preclude prejudgment interest awards where there is a loss of a vested property right and the date of loss is ascertainable from the evidence.
[1] Prejudgment interest is awardable upon the loss of a vested property right.
[2] The absence of out-of-pocket expenditures does not preclude an award of prejudgment interest.
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“prejudgment interest is awardable upon the loss of a vested property right”
Establishes the legal standard for when prejudgment interest is available in property damage cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants were granted permission to use a small portion of the plaintiffs' land for a utility easement. However, the defendants repeatedly excee…
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 Trespass cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants present several issues in connection with an order awarding damages on the appellee’s action for trespass and breach of contract. The appellees cross-appeal, presenting additional issues. However, the only error shown is with regard to the court’s limited award of prejudgment interest, which should have been awarded on the full measure of the compensatory damages.
The appellees’ trespass and breach of contract action was based on damage the appellants caused to the appellees’ land, when the appellants repeatedly entered onto the appellees’ property and destroyed trees and other vegetation, while also causing further damage. The appellees had given the appellants permission to use a small portion of the land for a utility easement, but the appellants did not confíne their activities to the easement area and wrongfully trespassed onto other portions of the appellees’ land, in violation of the easement agreement. The appellees thus brought the trespass and breach of contract action, and the appellants admitted liability whereupon a trial was had to assess damages, with the jury awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. The court entered a judgment for the appel-lees, with prejudgment interest on part, but not all, of the compensatory damages.
In limiting the award of prejudgment interest the court cited Air Ambulance Professionals, Inc. v. Thin Air, 809 So.2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and observed that the appellees did not have out-of-pocket expenditures on the trespass. The court further cited Brewster v. Alachua Tire & Fuel Services, Inc., 442 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and observed that there was no jury finding expressly fixing a date when the appellants’ obligation to pay for the damage became due. But neither of those factors precludes the award of prejudgment interest. As the supreme court indicated in Alvarado v. Rice, 614 So.2d 498, (Fla.1993), prejudgment interest is awardable upon the loss of a vested property right. See also Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). And there does not have to be a special verdict as to the date of loss, where the loss is established by the verdict and the pertinent date can be ascertained from the evidence. See e.g. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985); Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Pine Ridge at Haverhill Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Hovnanian of Palm Beach II, Inc., 629 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA).
Because the present case involves both the loss of a vested property right, and a date of loss ascertainable from the evidence as to when the property damage occurred, prejudgment interest should have been awarded on the full measure of the compensatory damages. The appealed order is therefore reversed as to the partial denial of prejudgment interest. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.
BARFIELD and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ariz. Chem. Co., LLC v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 197 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ss.” Argonaut, 474 So. 2d at 215. A verdict is said to have the effect of [*103] liquidating damages as long as the verdict establishes the loss and “the pertinent date can be. ascertained from the evidence.” Pace Property Fin. Auth., Inc. v. Jones, 24 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). . Mohawk contends that, in a breach-of-contract.or warranty action, prejudgment interest accrues from the date of breach rather than the date the plaintiff sustains the pecuniary loss for which the jury awarded damages. T…
-
Manheimer v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 403 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…7, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding that punitive damages were warranted where the defendant intentionally trespassed onto the plaintiff’s property and later refused to leave after notification by the owner); Pace Prop. Fin. Auth., Inc. v. Jones, 24 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that punitive damages were awarded “based on damage the appellants caused to the appellees’ land, when the appellants repeatedly entered onto the appellees’ property and destroyed trees and other vegetation”). FPL m…
-
Creative Invs., Inc. v. Santibanez (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…ct where jury did not identify time period associated with award and “it simply cannot be determined from the record when the particular pecuniary losses awarded by the jury occurred”) (emphasis in original); Pace Prop. Fin. Auth., Inc. v. Jones, 24 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[T]here does not have to be a special verdict as to the date of loss, where the loss is established by the verdict and the pertinent date can be ascertained from the evidence.”); Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Bergen Brunswig Corp. & Health Application Sys., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State v. Darrin O'Neill McCLAIN, 614 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1993)
- Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- AIR Ambulance Prof'ls, Inc. v. Thin AIR, 809 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Pine Ridge AT Haverhill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Hovnanian OF Palm Beach II, Inc., 629 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Wright v. State, 442 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)