Dykema Gossett v. Armbruster

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dykema Gossett v. Armbruster

595 So. 2d 589, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3538, 1992 WL 63102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2100

StatusPublished

This text of 595 So. 2d 589 (Dykema Gossett v. Armbruster) 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

Dykema Gossett v. Armbruster, 595 So. 2d 589, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3538, 1992 WL 63102 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

GUNTHER, Judge.

We reverse the trial court order denying the appellants’ motion for prejudgment interest. Appellants correctly argue that they are entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985). The Florida Supreme Court in Argonaut held that “when a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiffs out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the loss.” Id. However, in the instant case, the trial court erred in not making a specific finding regarding the day the debt was due. See Hurley v. Slingerland, 480 So.2d 104, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1986). Consequently, upon remand, the trial court shall make a specific finding of the due date of the debt and award prejudgment interest.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

GUNTHER, Judge.

We reverse the trial court order denying the appellants’ motion for prejudgment interest. Appellants correctly argue that they are entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985). The Florida Supreme Court in Argonaut held that “when a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiffs out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the loss.” Id. However, in the instant case, the trial court erred in not making a specific finding regarding the day the debt was due. See Hurley v. Slingerland, 480 So.2d 104, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1986). Consequently, upon remand, the trial court shall make a specific finding of the due date of the debt and award prejudgment interest.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 589, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3538, 1992 WL 63102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dykema-gossett-v-armbruster-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack