JAMES B. FRANKLIN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM R. BOYD AND KATHERINE L. BOYD, 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.
The trial court erred in awarding interest after the jury verdict when the jury did not include interest in its award.
[1] A trial court may not award interest as an additional element of damages after a jury verdict has omitted any finding as to interest.
[2] A jury's damage award is final as to the amount assessed unless the jury indicates an intent to include interest.
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 intelligenceAppellants and appellees sued each other. A jury awarded appellees damages for conversion and appellants damages on a counterclaim for a promissory no…
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 Accrued Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant defendants and counter-plaintiffs seek review of a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of the appellees wherein the jury found for appellees in their claim for conversion of certain shares of corporate stock and for the appellants on a counter-claim based on a promissory note. The jury’s verdict assessed damages •in favor of the appellee plaintiffs in the amount of $78,125.62 less $38,470.80 found due on the counter-claim. Subsequently, the trial court, on motion, added the sum of $10,967.55 as accrued interest to the final j udgment.
The appellants present a number of contentions in seeking reversal of the judgment. On consideration thereof in light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, we find all appellants’ contentions to be without merit, save one, to-wit: it was error for the trial judge to award interest subsequent to a jury verdict that omitted any finding as to interest.
We are of the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court was unauthorized to assess any interest as an additional element of damages after the jury had failed to do so. Grayson v. Fishlove, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 38; Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 352; Wabash Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holloway, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So.2d 145. Factually, the instant cause differs from Cantor v. Drapkin, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 542 in that the jury in no way indicated their desire or intent to include interest in their damage award. We, therefore, affirm the judgment as to the amount assessed by the jury and set forth in its verdict, to-wit: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs on their claim and for the defendant in their counterclaim and assess for the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $78,125.62 less $38,470.80 — Total—($39,654.-82) Dollars”, and reverse that part of the judgment that allowed interest in said claim in the amount of $10,967.55.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ere a case is tried by a jury. Wabash Fire and Casualty Company v. Holloway, 139 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1962); Riess v. Goldman, 196 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1967); Grayson v. Fishlove, 266 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1972); Franklin v. Boyd, 272 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1972); Schulman v. Cort Aviation Corporation, 330 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1976); Newcombe v. South Florida Business Negotiators, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1976); 18A Fla.Jur., Interest, § 18. Where the jury, in its…
-
Franklin v. Boyd, 277 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 272 So. 2d 191. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City Nat'l Bank OF Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Wabash Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Holloway, 139 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Grayson v. Fishlove, 266 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Cantor v. Drapkin, 251 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)