Griffin v. Balistreri Realty, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffin v. Balistreri Realty, Inc.

908 So. 2d 520, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10070, 2005 WL 1522786

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-349

StatusPublished

This text of 908 So. 2d 520 (Griffin v. Balistreri Realty, 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

Griffin v. Balistreri Realty, Inc., 908 So. 2d 520, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10070, 2005 WL 1522786 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant plaintiffs sued a realty company and its agents after purchasing a home in which there was substantial termite damage which had not been disclosed. The case was arbitrated and plaintiffs received “a total award of $155,000,” which did not include prejudgment interest. In the proceedings before the court for confirmation of the award, plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest, which was denied based on Preserve Estates v. Bryant Contracting Corp., 657 So.2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Plaintiffs argue that the present case is distinguishable from Preserve Estates, because in that case the arbitration order stated that it was “in full and final settlement of all claims submitted” to the arbitrator. We disagree that the eases are distinguishable and conclude that the trial court was correct in determining that it was not authorized to modify the arbitrator’s award by adding interest to the award. McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Okun v. Litwin Sec., 652 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Affirmed.

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant plaintiffs sued a realty company and its agents after purchasing a home in which there was substantial termite damage which had not been disclosed. The case was arbitrated and plaintiffs received “a total award of $155,000,” which did not include prejudgment interest. In the proceedings before the court for confirmation of the award, plaintiffs sought prejudgment interest, which was denied based on Preserve Estates v. Bryant Contracting Corp., 657 So.2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Plaintiffs argue that the present case is distinguishable from Preserve Estates, because in that case the arbitration order stated that it was “in full and final settlement of all claims submitted” to the arbitrator. We disagree that the eases are distinguishable and conclude that the trial court was correct in determining that it was not authorized to modify the arbitrator’s award by adding interest to the award. McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Okun v. Litwin Sec., 652 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Affirmed.

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 So. 2d 520, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10070, 2005 WL 1522786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-balistreri-realty-inc-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack