MARY G. LATTIN AND THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM C. LATTIN, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAURICE A. LA FRANCE AND LILLIAN LA FRANCE, 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 court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded when the promissory note explicitly excludes interest.
Holders of a promissory note sued for payment and were awarded prejudgment interest, though it was not requested and the note itself had all reference…
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 Promissory Note Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The holders of a promissory note successfully sued for payment. As an integral part of the final judgment, the trial judge awarded prejudgment interest, though none was asked for at trial or included in the jury verdict. We reverse.
A very recent holding by our Supreme Court has concluded that the awarding of prejudgment interest, in a case such as this, is a purely ministerial act which would normally permit the trial judge to do what he did here. Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). However, we are of the opinion that this particular case poses an exception.
The promissory note before us now was not an interest-bearing document. On the contrary, all references to interest printed on this standard form note were specifically lined out and removed, including the reference to deferred interest. Due to this circumstance, we hold that the note will not support the award of prejudgment interest.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment in accordance herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and BARKETT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ascontec Consulting, Inc. v. Young, 714 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…here would be no interest. As there were no net profits, no interest was due. The claim to impose statutory interest after the due date of the loan is without merit. See Giglio v. Weaner, 503 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Lattin v. LaFrance, 475 So. 2d 299, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Aseontec argues that it should have been granted attorney’s fees under the attorney’s fee clause of the $150,000 note. Ascon-tec reasons that it was the prevailing party in the action to collect the note, because the accou…
-
Giglio v. Weaner, 503 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…4 So. 2d at 215. In the case before us, the defendant’s note bore the following legend: “This note shall not bear interest.” Under these circumstances we hold that the note will not support the award of prejudgment interest. See Lattin v. La France, 475 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). On the second point: plaintiff’s demand for attorney’s fees was based on a provision in the note requiring payment of all costs including attorney’s fees incurred in collecting or enforcing payment of the note. In awarding atto…
-
Nielsen-Miller Constr. Co. v. Pantlin/Prescott, Inc., 602 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ed that the maker was liable to the payee for $85,497 in unpaid principal as of a specific date. Under Argonaut, the payee is entitled to interest from the date of default to the date of judgment. The maker cites our decision in Lattin v. LaFrance, 475 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), on which the trial court relied to deny prejudgment interest. In Lattin, de [*1368] cided approximately two months after Argonaut, we read Argonaut to permit a denial of prejudgment interest in a special circumstance, saying as…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)