CREATIVE INVESTORS, INC.
v.
SERGIO SANTIBANEZ
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.
Appellants challenge a trial court's award of $33,160.04 in prejudgment interest in a dispute involving private loans and mortgage investments. The appellate court affirms the award because appellants failed to provide a trial transcript or hearing transcript necessary for appellate review of their claim regarding the calculation date for prejudgment interest.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of prejudgment interest, finding that it could not review appellants' challenge due to the absence of a trial transcript or hearing transcript in the appellate record.
[1] Where a jury verdict does not identify the time period associated with an award and the record does not establish when the pecuniary loss occurred, prejudgment interest m…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it simply cannot be determined from the record when the particular pecuniary losses awarded by the jury occurred”
Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, cited for the proposition that prejudgment interest must be calculated from the verdict date when the jury does not identify the time period associated with the award.
The case involved claims and counterclaims between the parties concerning private loans and mortgage investments. The jury rendered a verdict awarding…
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 Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
Dennis A. Donet, P.A., and Dennis A. Donet, for appellants. Hiller Law, P.A., and Douglas C. Hiller, for appellees. Before LOGUE, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, counter defendants in this case concerning claims and counterclaims based on private loans and mortgage investments among the parties, appeal from a final judgment awarding prejudgment interest in favor of the appellees, counter plaintiffs below. Because the appellants have not provided a transcript of either the trial or the June 16, 2020 hearing on prejudgment interest, we are unable to review their claim that because the jury did not fix a date of loss in the verdict form, the only possible date from which prejudgment interest can be calculated is the verdict. The trial court’s award of $33,160.04 in prejudgment interest may comport with the record.
We simply cannot tell. See Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 141 So. 3d 743, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding prejudgment interest must be calculated from date of verdict where jury did not identify time period associated with award and “it simply cannot be determined from the record when the particular pecuniary losses awarded by the jury occurred”) (emphasis in original); Pace Prop. Fin. Auth., Inc. v. Jones, 24 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[T]here does not have to be a special verdict as to the date of loss, where the loss is established by the verdict and the pertinent date can be ascertained from the evidence.”); Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (reversing denial of award of prejudgment interest where record reflected date of loss).
Accordingly, the final judgment awarding prejudgment interest is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 141 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Pace Prop. Fin. Auth., Inc. v. Jones, 24 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)