FORT PIERCE TOYOTA, INC., AND RICHARD RAFFO, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD WOLF, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in entering judgment for punitive damages due to lack of supporting evidence and in disallowing interest on a liquidated sum. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of contract after they stopped payment on a check. A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial co…
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 Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendants, Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc., and Richard Raffo, appeal final judgment entered in favor of appellee-plaintiff, Donald Wolf, in an action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract on stopping payment on a check. At conclusion of. trial by jury, a verdict was returned awarding both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Donald Wolf and against Richard Raffo. Final judgment was subsequently entered by the trial court. Thereafter, by separate order, the trial court denied appellee’s motion to tax interest on the amount set forth in the check, which was awarded by the jury, from the date of the check to the date of final judgment. Hence this appeal and cross-appeal.
Upon consideration of the record, testimony, briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties, we determine the trial court erred in entering final judgment for punitive damages as there is no evidence to support the award of punitive damages. We further determine that the trial court erred in not taxing interest on the amount of the check from the date thereof to date of final judgment as the face amount of the check was for a liquidated sum.
Accordingly, that part of the final judgment awarding punitive damages is reversed. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
The order disallowing interest on Twenty-four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($24,500), the amount of the check, from the date of the check to date of final judgment is reversed.
The cause is remanded for entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with the views herein expressed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded, with instructions.
CROSS, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Overseas Equip. Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…39 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1976), the Supreme Court held that to recover for punitive damages in a tort as an independent cause of action, in addition to breach of contract, “an intentional wrong” must be alleged. See, also Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc. v. Wolf, 345 So. 2d 348 (Fla.4th DCA 1977), which clearly indicates that a voluntary action of stopping payment on a check will not alone support a claim for intentional wrong to support a punitive damage award, in addition to a compensatory award for the loss of proceeds…
-
Underwriters AT LaCONCORDE v. Airtech Servs., Inc., 493 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1986)….3d DCA 1985), directly and expressly conflicts with A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. v. Suber Cattle Co., 416 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Broward County v. Sattler, 400 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc. v. Wolf, 345 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Subsequent to the Third District’s decision in this case, we decided Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). That case is controlling. Accordi…
-
Underwriters AT LaCONCORDE v. Airtech Servs., Inc., 468 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…mination of employment without notice, there was “no need to submit the question of [prejudgment] interest to the jury where the amount of damages [was] liquidated and the assessment merely require[d] calculation”); Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc. v. Wolf, 345 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (in action for breach of contract based on stopped payment on check, trial court erred in denying post-verdict motion to tax prejudgment interest on amount of check where face amount of check was for liquidated sum). In addition,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence