LEWIS OIL COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT PAUL MILLIKEN AND GAIL A. MILLIKEN, 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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision regarding damages and prejudgment interest in a contract dispute between a company and its lessees. The court found no error in denying prejudgment interest on equipment value and in refusing to award costs to either party.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in denying prejudgment interest on the equipment value because the lessees made a timely tender of the purchase price. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award costs.
[1] A trial court does not err in declining to award prejudgment interest on equipment value when the lessee made a timely purchase money tender for the equipment.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to award costs when neither party is deemed the prevailing party under the unique circumstances of the case.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Lewis Oil appeals the trial court’s order denying prejudgment interest on the amount established for the value of the leased equipment and denying an award of costs to either party based upon a finding that under the unique circumstances of the instant case neither party prevailed.”
This quote outlines the specific issues being appealed by Lewis Oil.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury awarded damages to Lewis Oil on a breach of marketing agreement claim and determined the value of leased equipment. The jury also awarded damag…
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 Prevailing Party cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following the trial below, jury verdicts were entered (i) in favor of appellant, Lewis Oil Company, Inc., awarding damages of $32,000 on its count for breach of a marketing agreement by appellees, Robert Paul Mil-liken and Gail A. Milliken, and determining a fair value of $98,000 for the equipment leased by Lewis Oil to the Millikens under the appellant’s count for declaratory judgment of the parties rights and obligations under an option for the purchase of the equipment incorporated in an equipment lease agreement between the parties, and (ii) in favor of the Millikens assessing damages of $23,000 under their counterclaim for breach of the marketing agreement by Lewis Oil. Lewis Oil appeals the trial court’s order denying prejudgment interest on the amount established for the value of the leased equipment and denying an award of costs to either party based upon a finding that under the unique circumstances of the instant case neither party prevailed. The Millikens also cross-appeal the denial of costs. We affirm.
The trial court correctly granted prejudgment interest to Lewis Oil on the net amount of $9,000 of the damages awarded by the jury. Because, the record contains competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the Millikens timely made a purchase money tender of $115,000 to purchase the equipment pursuant to the equipment lease, the trial court did not err in declining to award prejudgment interest to Lewis Oil on the value established for the equipment. See Shouse v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95, 21 So. 807 (Fla.1897); see also, Konigsburg v. Grand, 529 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Further, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award costs based on a finding that neither party was the prevailing party. See Prosperi v.Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1993); Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
- Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)
- Shouse v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1897)
- Scott v. State, 529 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Konigsburg v. Grand, 529 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)