MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/APPELLEE,
v.
FLORESCUE & ANDREWS INVESTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE/APPELLANT, V. GULFSTREAM MOTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MARLIN IMPORTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 the circumstances did not amount to a waiver of the prejudgment interest claim and that an award of prejudgment interest is non-discretionary once the loss is ascertained.
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. appealed a lower court decision. Florescue & Andrews cross-appealed, contending it was entitled to prejudgment in…
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 Liquidated Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, JACQUELINE R., Associate Judge.
We find no error in any of the issues raised by Appellant, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (“Mercedes”). We agree, however, with Florescue & Andrews’ contention on cross-appeal that it is entitled to recover prejudgment interest from the date the debt was liquidated by the lower court’s judgment.
Although unstated in the court’s order, the parties appear to agree that the lower court concluded Florescue & Andrews waived its prejudgment interest claim. We believe that the circumstances presented in the record below do not amount to a waiver. Floreseue & Andrews withdrew the claim in an amendment to its complaint filed pursuant to a lower court order that granted Mercedes’ motion to strike. Additionally, prejudgment interest does not have to be pled,1 and an award of prejudgment interest is non-discretionary once the amount of loss is ascertained.2 Accordingly, we remand to the lower court with instructions to fix and award the amount of prejudgment interest to which Floreseue & Andrews is entitled.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Tillman v. Howell, 634 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Getelman v. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236, 1240-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1986).
. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ourt’s jurisdiction. With respect to the issue of interest, neither pre-judgment interest nor post-judgment interest needs to be specifically pled under Florida law. See, e.g., Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Florescue & Andrews Invs., Inc., 653 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (noting “pre-judgment interest does not have to be pled, and an award of pre-judgment interest is non-discretionary once the amount of loss is ascertained”); Napp v. Carman, 576 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (noting “…
-
Brink Distribs., Inc. v. J. Evans Assocs., Inc., 667 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…lso the amount Brereton paid in cash. Additionally, prejudgment interest should have been awarded because the trial court does not have discretion in deciding whether it is to be awarded. Id. at 215; Mercedes-Benz v. Florescue & Andrews Invs., Inc., 653 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As for postjudgment interest, if on remand'the judge again sets the award off in installments against the outstanding principal balance, he must award postjudgment interest. Otherwise — because the payments are to be set off in…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Getelman v. Burton R. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Tillman v. Howell, 634 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)