RALPH MAFFUCCI, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS A. SABATINO, 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.
The appellate court reviewed a judgment for attorney fees, specifically addressing whether the trial court erred in adding interest to the jury's award. The court held that adding interest, which the jury did not award, was improper.
Yes, the trial court erred in adding interest to the judgment because the jury's verdict did not include it.
“The sole issue on this appeal is whether or not the trial court was in error in adding to the judgment interest on the sum found due the appellee.”
This quote defines the central legal question the court addressed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee, an attorney, sued for professional services rendered and obtained a jury verdict of $4,600. The trial court entered a final judgment tha…
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 Interest On Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the appellee for professional services rendered as an attorney at law.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether or not the trial court was in error in adding to the judgment interest on the sum found due the appellee. The jury’s verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee in the sum of $4,600 with no mention made of interest.
Before hearing oral argument, this court, by order of December 18, 1961, limited the issue on appeal to the question as stated above. After hearing oral argument, considering the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that the inclusion of interest in the judgment, which was not found by the jury in its verdict, was improper. This has been the law in Florida for some time. Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769; State ex rel. Boulevard Mortgage Co. v. Thompson, 113 Fla. 419, 151 So. 704. This court has followed the line of decisions represented by the former cases as indicated by,the case of Bailey v. Swartz, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 310.
Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury but without interest, and as so modified and entered, the judgment will stand affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1926)
- State v. Uly O. Thompson, 113 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1933)
- Carroll Bailey v. Swartz, 97 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)