David v. Liberty National Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David v. Liberty National Bank

651 So. 2d 1291, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2564, 1995 WL 107429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1995

DocketNo. 94-01790

StatusPublished

This text of 651 So. 2d 1291 (David v. Liberty National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David v. Liberty National Bank, 651 So. 2d 1291, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2564, 1995 WL 107429 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The appellants, Paul P. David and Rose David, challenge a deficiency judgment entered against them as a result of a mortgage foreclosure action. We find no merit in the appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in entering a deficiency judgment in this case and, accordingly, affirm that determination. The court erred, however, by entering a final judgment which awarded post-judgment interest on the amount found due as prejudgment interest. Sciandra v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 638 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City [1292]*1292of Tampa, 629 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to enter a judgment which does not provide for postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest award, but affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The appellants, Paul P. David and Rose David, challenge a deficiency judgment entered against them as a result of a mortgage foreclosure action. We find no merit in the appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in entering a deficiency judgment in this case and, accordingly, affirm that determination. The court erred, however, by entering a final judgment which awarded post-judgment interest on the amount found due as prejudgment interest. Sciandra v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 638 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City [1292]*1292of Tampa, 629 So.2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to enter a judgment which does not provide for postjudgment interest on the prejudgment interest award, but affirm the trial court in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 1291, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2564, 1995 WL 107429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-liberty-national-bank-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack