ABRAHAM COHEN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
AVRA JAIN, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
In consolidated appeals, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment in a contract dispute involving a promissory note. The court held that absent an express provision for compound interest in the note, only simple interest may be awarded, and affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, directed verdict determinations, and denial of post-judgment relief.
The court held that absent an express provision for compound interest in a promissory note, only simple interest is recoverable. The trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in granting Cohen's directed verdict motion on Jain and Murphy's affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment.
[1] A promissory note holder is entitled only to simple interest when the note contains no express provision for the compounding of interest.
[2] Evidentiary errors in a civil trial are subject to harmless error analysis, requiring the beneficiary of the error to establish no reasonable probability that the error c…
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“where the note contains no express provision for the compounding of interest, the holder of the note is entitled only to simple interest”
Establishes the governing rule that compound interest requires express contractual language in the promissory note
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCohen held a promissory note against Jain and Murphy. The trial court entered a final judgment in Cohen's favor but awarded only simple interest rathe…
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 Harmless Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
In these consolidated appeals, the parties each seek review of portions of the post-trial final judgment. Appellant Abraham Cohen appeals that portion of an otherwise favorable final judgment which awarded only simple interest (instead of compound interest) under the promissory note at issue. Appellees Avra Jain, Paul Murphy and H-H Investments, LLC (collectively, Jain and Murphy) cross-appeal the final judgment, alleging that the trial court committed several errors in the course of the trial. Murphy and Jain also appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We affirm both of the final orders on appeal.
As to Cohen’s appeal from that portion of the final judgment awarding only simple interest, it is well-settled that where the note contains no express provision for the compounding of interest, the holder of the note is entitled only to simple interest. Stramondo v. Jet 1, Inc., 865 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Pitts v. Pastore, 561 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); PDGS, Ltd. v. Motwani, 729 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lyons v. Wyman, 658 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
With regard to Jain and Murphy’s appeal of the final judgment, we find that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings excluding certain evidence and, to the extent that any evidence was erroneously excluded, such error was harmless. See Special v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So.3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (applying harmless error standard in a civil appeal, requiring the beneficiary of the error to establish that there is no reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict). We also hold that the trial court properly denied Jain and Murphy’s motion for directed verdict and properly granted Cohen’s motion for directed verdict on Jain and Murphy’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. See Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So.3d 273, 277 (Fla. 2015) (holding that an appellate court, viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to non-moving party, can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the non-moving party); Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So.3d 870, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing that “a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally *101predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.”)1
Finally, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Jain and Murphy’s motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540. See LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Bank of America, N.A., 826 So.2d 462, 463-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (applying gross abuse of discretion standard in reviewing trial court’s ruling on a motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540 and quoting Schwab & Co. v. Breezy Bay, Inc., 360 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“The discretion reposed in the trial judge by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 is of the broadest scope and in order to reverse a judge’s ruling thereunder, there must be a showing of a gross abuse of discretion.”))
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avra Jain v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 322 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…ranty given by Jain to Abraham Cohen (“Cohen”). Jain seeks to recover from Buchanan the approximately $11 million she was found to owe Cohen in the underlying case, Abraham Cohen v. Avra Jain, 2009-14497-CA-01, affirmed on appeal, Cohen v. Jain, 219 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Facts Jain and her partner invested $5 million to acquire a 45% ownership interest in a residential development project owned by Cohen. Through her company, H&H Investments (“H&H”), Jain purchased all of Cohen’s remaining ow…1 / 2
-
Marchelos v. Amilcar J. Adao (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014)
- Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Breezy BAY, Inc., 360 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Claude v. Pitts, Jr., 561 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Alba G. Tylinski and Cecilia M. Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Shandalyn Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P'ship, 157 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2015)
- Miller v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr. & Fla. Parole Comm'n, 826 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 826 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Lyons v. Wyman, 658 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- PDGS, Ltd. v. Gopal P. Motwani, 729 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Stramondo v. JET 1, Inc., 865 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)