Hemmerle v. Westfield Financial Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hemmerle v. Westfield Financial Corp.

489 So. 2d 1171, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1198, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8034

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2415

StatusPublished

This text of 489 So. 2d 1171 (Hemmerle v. Westfield Financial Corp.) 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

Hemmerle v. Westfield Financial Corp., 489 So. 2d 1171, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1198, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8034 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment under review is affirmed in all respects except for the assessment of pre-judgment interest. As to the latter, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to reduce the assessed pre-judgment interest to $306,941.39 in accord with the appellee’s concession to that effect during the oral argument of the cause. See Hamilton Const. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction [1172]*1172of Dade County, 65 So.2d 729 (Fla.1953); Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386, 388, 190 So. 618, 619 (1939); Carlon, Inc. v. Southland Diversified Co., 381 So.2d 291, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Rutkin, 218 So.2d 509, 511-12 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 225 So.2d 531 (Fla.1969); Windowmaster Cory. v. Jefferson Construction Co., 114 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment under review is affirmed in all respects except for the assessment of pre-judgment interest. As to the latter, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to reduce the assessed pre-judgment interest to $306,941.39 in accord with the appellee’s concession to that effect during the oral argument of the cause. See Hamilton Const. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction [1172]*1172of Dade County, 65 So.2d 729 (Fla.1953); Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386, 388, 190 So. 618, 619 (1939); Carlon, Inc. v. Southland Diversified Co., 381 So.2d 291, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Rutkin, 218 So.2d 509, 511-12 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 225 So.2d 531 (Fla.1969); Windowmaster Cory. v. Jefferson Construction Co., 114 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 So. 2d 1171, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1198, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemmerle-v-westfield-financial-corp-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack