INO HALEGUA, ET AL.
v.
VICTOR LERNER, ET AL.
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.
A party is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of loss when a claim becomes liquidated by judgment, and the trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest where the evidence at trial established specific dates of loss through checks and testimony detailing underpayments from 2004 to 2009.
[1] Prejudgment interest requires proof of two prerequisites: an out-of-pocket pecuniary loss and a fixed date of loss.
[2] When a disputed claim becomes liquidated by judgment, prejudgment interest is awarded from the date payment was due, not from the date of judgment or verdict.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is well settled that a plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest when it is determined that the plaintiff has suffered an actual, out-of-pocket loss at some date prior to the entry of judgment.”
Establishes the foundational principle that prejudgment interest requires proof of an actual pecuniary loss before judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHalegua filed a counterclaim seeking an accounting for unpaid profit sharing between 2004 and 2009. At a nonjury trial, Halegua introduced checks and …
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 Out-Of-Pocket Pecuniary Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September4, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1525 Lower Tribunal No. 10-30306 ________________
Ino Halegua, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Victor Lerner, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.
Jones & Adams, P.A., and Matthew L. Jones and Eric Rojo-Dotel; Joel
S. Perwin, P.A., and Joel S. Perwin, for appellants.
Charlip Law Group, L.C., and David H. Charlip, for appellees.
Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J.
2
Ino Halegua and related entities (collectively, Halegua) filed a counterclaim below seeking an accounting for unpaid profit sharing between 2004 and 2009. At a one-day nonjury trial before a predecessor judge, Halegua introduced voluminous evidence in the form of checks representing allegedly unauthorized transactions. These checks, and Halegua’s testimony, established the dates and amounts of the underpayments. The resulting final judgment on the counterclaim awarded Halegua the full amount of underpayment they claimed due and owing. However, the issue on appeal involves the availability of prejudgment interest from the date of the loss. The trial court, agreeing with Lerner and the counter-defendants below, concluded that Halegua failed to establish a fixed date of loss, thereby precluding prejudgment interest. Halegua argues that the evidence provides more than a sufficient basis to determine a fixed date of loss, namely, the date that Lerner and the counter-defendants should have paid the full amount awarded at trial.
We review a trial court’s decision on entitlement to prejudgment interest de novo. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. James, 376 So. 3d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). While “[i]t is well settled that a plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest when it is determined that the plaintiff has suffered an actual, out-of-pocket loss at some date prior to the entry of judgment,”
3 Alvarado v. Rice, 614 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 1993) (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985)), the real issue here becomes whether the party seeking prejudgment interest provided sufficient evidence of a fixed date of loss. Hence, “[t]here are two prerequisites to the award of prejudgment interest as damages: (1) Out-of-pocket pecuniary loss, and (2) a fixed date of loss.” Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 141 So. 3d 743, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So. 2d 1378, 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). The evidence presented at trial established both an out-of-pocket loss and a fixed date (or, rather, dates) of loss.1 Specifically, the checks employed as evidence in support of the accounting counterclaim, as well as Halegua’s testimony, detailed several dates of loss from 2004 to 2009. For example, the first check introduced at the accounting trial indicated a date of January 12, 2004. Further, the attachments to Halegua’s motion for prejudgment interest specified that as of December 31, 2004, Halegua was owed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Darrin O'Neill McCLAIN, 614 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1993)
- Capitol Env't Servs., Inc. v. Earth Tech, Inc., 25 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- O'Neal v. Brady, 476 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 141 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Millard v. Brannan, 553 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avill James, 376 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)