HOWARD SCHULMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CORT AVIATION CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unliquidated Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $2,420.80 and interest thereon in the amount of $329.60, plus costs of $240.45, the defendant below has appealed, contending the allowance of interest was error. The arguments in the briefs dealt with the propriety of the inclusion of interest in the judgment as depending upon whether the indebtedness for which judgment was awarded was liquidated or unliquidated.
We are relieved of the necessity to evaluate those opposing arguments of counsel and to chose between them, because the verdict rendered by the jury did not allow or provide for the allowance of interest, and therefore it was error for the court, in entering judgment on the verdict, to add to the sum assessed by the jury an additional sum for interest thereon. See Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769; Bailey v. Swartz, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 310; Wabash Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Holloway, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 145; Grayson v. Fishlove, Fla.App.1972, 266 So. 2d 38.
For the reason stated, the judgment is hereby amended to eliminate therefrom the item of $329.60 interest, and as so amended the judgment is affirmed.
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)…39 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 verdict, fails to allow or indicate a desire to allow interest and/or attorney…
-
Newcombe v. S. Fla. Bus. Negotiators, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…ed by jury, there is no authority for the trial judge to assess interest over and above the amount awarded by the jury. Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769 (1926); Grayson v. Fishlove, 266 So. 2d 38 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Schulman v. Cort Aviation, 330 So. 2d 114 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Since many breach of contract actions are tried without a jury, there is a dearth of authority as to whether it is proper for the court to award attorney’s fees following a jury verdict. The sole cases we have located on this poi…
-
AETNA Ins. Co. v. Settembrino, 369 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…judgment when the jury verdict made no reference to, or allowance for, interest therein. In that the jury verdict is silent with respect to interest, it is our opinion that the trial judge did, in fact, so err. Schulman v. Cort Aviation Corporation, 330 So. 2d 114 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condominium Association, Inc. v. Cohen, 350 So. 2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the “judgment for attorney’s fees” is affirmed, while the “interest judgment” is reversed. Affirmed in part; re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1926)
- Carroll Bailey v. Swartz, 97 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- 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)