Domenic D. Miele a/k/a Domenic Miele v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Evergrene Master Association, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Domenic D. Miele a/k/a Domenic Miele v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Evergrene Master Association, Inc.

168 So. 3d 1275, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10745, 2015 WL 4269929

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 2015

Docket4D14-873

StatusPublished

This text of 168 So. 3d 1275 (Domenic D. Miele a/k/a Domenic Miele v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Evergrene Master Association, Inc.) 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

Domenic D. Miele a/k/a Domenic Miele v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Evergrene Master Association, Inc., 168 So. 3d 1275, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10745, 2015 WL 4269929 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant raises three issues in this mortgage foreclosure case. We find two issues have no merit, but we agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in its calculation of prejudgment interest.

The complaint alleged that the appellant defaulted on the note by failing to make the payment due on August 1, 2009, and all subsequent payments. The evidence introduced at trial indicated that the loan became due on August 1, 2009. However, the trial court calculated prejudgment interest from July 1, 2009. This was error. We reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate prejudgment interest using the correct accrual date. We reject the appellant’s other arguments regarding calculation of prejudgment interest.

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

CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant raises three issues in this mortgage foreclosure case. We find two issues have no merit, but we agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in its calculation of prejudgment interest.

The complaint alleged that the appellant defaulted on the note by failing to make the payment due on August 1, 2009, and all subsequent payments. The evidence introduced at trial indicated that the loan became due on August 1, 2009. However, the trial court calculated prejudgment interest from July 1, 2009. This was error. We reverse and remand for the trial court to recalculate prejudgment interest using the correct accrual date. We reject the appellant’s other arguments regarding calculation of prejudgment interest.

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

CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 3d 1275, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10745, 2015 WL 4269929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domenic-d-miele-aka-domenic-miele-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-evergrene-fladistctapp-2015.