H. DAVID GILLIARD, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN R. WRIGHT, RECEIVER FOR GILLIARD GROVE SERVICES, INC. AND GILLIARD GROVES, INC., APPELLEE
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.
H. David Gilliard, Jr. appeals a final judgment awarding the receiver of his companies over $3.2 million in damages, attorney's fees, and interest. The court affirmed the underlying damages award but reversed the trial court's grant of prejudgment interest on statutory treble damages for civil theft, holding that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on statutory penalties.
Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on statutory penalties, including treble damages. The court reversed the portion of the prejudgment interest award relating to the treble damage award and remanded for recalculation of interest in accordance with the proper principle that prejudgment interest is meant to compensate for loss of use of money, not to punish.
[1] Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on a statutory penalty.
[2] Prejudgment interest is intended as restitution to compensate for the loss of use of money, not as punishment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on a statutory penalty.”
Establishes the core holding that statutory penalties like treble damages cannot bear prejudgment interest.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe receiver for Gilliard Grove Services, Inc. and Gilliard Groves, Inc. sued Gilliard for civil theft in the amount of $969,325.00 and requested treb…
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 Statutory Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
[*816] PER CURIAM.
The appellant, H. David Gilliard, Jr., challenges a final judgment entered against him and in favor of Stephen R. Wright, Receiver for Gilliard Grove Services, Inc. and Gilliard Groves, Inc. The trial court entered a final judgment awarding the appellee “the sum of $3,168,-682.00 on principal, $34,796.00 for attorneys fees with costs in the sum of $5,675.54, making a sub total of $3,209,153.54 that shall bear interest at a rate of 12% a year and in addition the plaintiff shall recover prejudgment interest of $2,968,948.00-for which let execution issue.”
We find that the trial court erred by awarding the appellee certain prejudgment interest but affirm the trial court, without discussion, in all other respects.
In one count of the appellee’s complaint, he alleged a cause of action for civil theft in the amount of $969,325.00 and requested treble damages on that amount. The trial court granted the treble damage request and then gave the appellee prejudgment interest on the $2,907,975.00 award. This was error. We agree with our sister court’s holding in Zucker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 589 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In Zucker, the court held that prejudgment interest may not be awarded on a statutory penalty. Prejudgment interest should not be ordered as punishment, but instead as restitution to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of use of the plaintiffs money over the period of time that the party is deprived of the use of that money. Zucker. We, accordingly, reverse that part of the prejudgment interest award that relates to the treble damage award and instruct the court to compute the interest in accordance herewith. As mentioned above, we affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc. v. Ulrich, 692 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…t interest on costs is not available under Florida’s current case law.” 573 So. 2d at 883. Likewise, prejudgment interest is not available on punitive damages. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Gilliard v. Wright, 667 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Zucker v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 589 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We certify that this portion of our opinion is in conflict with Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc., 652 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 660 So. 2d 713 (Fla.199…
Authorities Cited
- Tumelty v. Burnup & Sims, 589 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)