CENTRAL BANK OF THE SOUTH, APPELLANT,
v.
SEPPALA & AHO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, 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.
Central Bank of the South appealed a judgment against it in favor of Seppala & Aho Construction Company and US Fidelity & Guaranty Company. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all respects except reversed the award of postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest component, certifying conflict with the Fifth District's contrary holding on whether interest can accrue on prejudgment interest.
Postjudgment interest cannot be awarded on prejudgment interest included in a final judgment because it constitutes an improper award of compound interest. As a matter of logic and law, interest cannot accrue on a sum that is itself interest.
[1] Post-judgment interest accrues on the entire amount of a final judgment, including any awarded prejudgment interest, as prejudgment interest is considered an element of d…
[2] Prejudgment interest, once awarded in a final judgment, becomes part of the total sum adjudged due and owing and automatically bears post-judgment interest.
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“interest may not accrue on a sum which is itself interest”
Establishes the fundamental principle that compound interest is not permissible under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not detail the underlying facts of the case, focusing instead on the technical issue of whether postjudgment interest should accrue o…
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 Compound Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We affirm in all respects except for the award of postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest included in the final judgment. As to that, we reverse on the basis of our decisions in Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Millar, 627 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1994); and Central Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In Millar, we said:
“we agree with Underwriters that the award to Millar erroneously includes post-judgment interest on that part of the final judgment which was prejudgment interest. See Central Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). There, we followed the reasoning enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court, at least by implication, in In re Amendments to Florida Small Claims Rules, 601 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla.1992), and the lead of the first district in LaFaye v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (interest may not accrue on a sum which is itself interest) and United Services Auto. Ass’n v. Smith, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (error to award interest on interest awarded in judgment because it amounts to an invalid award of compound interest). The third district also finds that as a matter of logic and therefore, of law, it is irrefutable that an award of interest cannot itself bear interest. Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Commer-cio, S.A, C.A., 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla.3d DCA 1991).”
627 So. 2d at 1188.
We also certify conflict with Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), which holds the contrary. The fifth district explained:
“If Perez does mean what it appears to mean, we are bound to disagree. In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 214-215 (Fla.1985), our supreme court determined that prejudgment interest is simply an element of pecuniary damages. Under this loss theory of damage, the failure of the defendant to surrender monies it owed to the plaintiff was itself a wrongful deprivation of the plaintiffs property, which the final judgment restores to the plaintiff. Once this element of damages is awarded in the final judgment, prejudgment interest, like all other elements of damage, becomes part of a single total sum adjudged to be due and owing. See Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The amount awarded for prejudgment interest, like all other components of the ‘judgment’, automatically bears interest as provided by section 55.03, Florida Statutes. * * ⅜ Section 55.03, Florida Statutes, when applied to a judgment that contains an award of prejudgment interest, does not impermissibly compound interest on interest; rather it awards interest on a final judgment that remains unpaid after entry.”
605 So. 2d at 1332. Although the members of this panel might have agreed with the fifth district on this issue, we are bound to follow the precedents of this court. By certifying the conflict, we make it possible for the supreme court to decide the issue and thereby resolve the conflict.
PARTIALLY AFFIRMED; REVERSED AS TO POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST ON PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PART OF JUDGMENT; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. v. The Resort AT Indian Spring Ltd., 664 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…established, as in the case of any other element, the amount awarded should automatically bear postjudgment interest. I agree with the certification of conflict with Peavy, as we did in Central Bank of the South v. Seppala & Aho Construction Co., 658 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).…
-
Freundlich v. W.G. Lassiter, Jr., 666 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ause it is not ripe for appeal. Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We do, however, reverse the award of post-judgment interest on pre-judgment interest on the basis of Central Bank of the South v. Seppala & Aho Construction Co., 658 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Millar, 627 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1994); and Central Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We also ce…
-
Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v. Jackman (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…egarding a patient's broken toe "effectively excuse[d] Lynch from the presuit requirements of chapter 766," warranting certiorari relief). As a panel, we are bound to follow Clare's precedent. Cf. Cent. Bank of the S. v. Seppala & Aho Constr. Co., 658 So. 2d 1248, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ("Although the members of this panel might have agreed with the fifth district on this issue, we are bound to follow the precedents of this court.").3 Since, under Clare, we have jurisdiction to consider the arguments rais…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Guy E. Smith and his wife, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- LaFAYE v. Presser, 554 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Cent. Constructors, Inc. v. The Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Sandoval v. Banco de Commercio, S.A., 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- C.M.E. v. State, 582 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules, 601 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1992)
- Underwriters AT Lloyd's London & Cos. listed on C.A. Hansen Corp. Cover No. 5H04/224 v. Millar, 627 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)