HDE, Inc. v. Bee-Line Supply Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

HDE, Inc. v. Bee-Line Supply Co.

200 So. 3d 1300, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15201, 2016 WL 6023947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 2016

Docket5D15-2805

StatusPublished

This text of 200 So. 3d 1300 (HDE, Inc. v. Bee-Line Supply Co.) 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

HDE, Inc. v. Bee-Line Supply Co., 200 So. 3d 1300, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15201, 2016 WL 6023947 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Bee-Line Supply Company, Inc. However, as Bee-Line concedes, the prejudgment interest awarded on the amount of the attorney’s fees should have been assessed from the date of the order confirming the arbitration award, June 18, 2013, which determined BeeLine’s entitlement to fees, not March 9, 2011, the date of the arbitration award; and the amount of prejudgment interest should have been calculated on the amount of the award and included in the judgment to bear post-judgment interest on the full amount. See Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So.2d 929, 930-31 (Fla.1996); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Wood, 676 So.2d 464, 466 (Fla. 6th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand only for the proper calculation of the prejudgment interest. 1

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., and CRAGGS, A.M., Associate Judge, concur.

1

. Appellee filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 25, 2015; however, the cross-appeal is deemed abandoned since Bee-Line did not file a cross-appeal initial brief.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Bee-Line Supply Company, Inc. However, as Bee-Line concedes, the prejudgment interest awarded on the amount of the attorney’s fees should have been assessed from the date of the order confirming the arbitration award, June 18, 2013, which determined BeeLine’s entitlement to fees, not March 9, 2011, the date of the arbitration award; and the amount of prejudgment interest should have been calculated on the amount of the award and included in the judgment to bear post-judgment interest on the full amount. See Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So.2d 929, 930-31 (Fla.1996); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Wood, 676 So.2d 464, 466 (Fla. 6th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand only for the proper calculation of the prejudgment interest. 1

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., and CRAGGS, A.M., Associate Judge, concur.

1

. Appellee filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 25, 2015; however, the cross-appeal is deemed abandoned since Bee-Line did not file a cross-appeal initial brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 1300, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15201, 2016 WL 6023947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hde-inc-v-bee-line-supply-co-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack