Maffucci v. Sabatino

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maffucci v. Sabatino

139 So. 2d 146

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1962

DocketNo. 61-519

StatusPublished

This text of 139 So. 2d 146 (Maffucci v. Sabatino) 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

Maffucci v. Sabatino, 139 So. 2d 146 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

HORTON, Judge.

This appeal is from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the appellee for professional services rendered as an attorney at law.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether or not the trial court was in error in adding to the judgment interest on the sum found due the appellee. The jury’s verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee in the sum of $4,600 with no mention made of interest.

Before hearing oral argument, this court, by order of December 18, 1961, limited the issue on appeal to the question as stated above. After hearing oral argument, considering the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that the inclusion of interest in the judgment, which was not found by the jury in its verdict, was improper. This has been the law in Florida for some time. Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769; State ex rel. Boulevard Mortgage Co. v. Thompson, 113 Fla. 419, 151 So. 704. This court has followed the line of decisions represented by the former cases as indicated by,the case of Bailey v. Swartz, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 310.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury but without interest, and as so modified and entered, the judgment will stand affirmed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

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

HORTON, Judge.

This appeal is from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the appellee for professional services rendered as an attorney at law.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether or not the trial court was in error in adding to the judgment interest on the sum found due the appellee. The jury’s verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee in the sum of $4,600 with no mention made of interest.

Before hearing oral argument, this court, by order of December 18, 1961, limited the issue on appeal to the question as stated above. After hearing oral argument, considering the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that the inclusion of interest in the judgment, which was not found by the jury in its verdict, was improper. This has been the law in Florida for some time. Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769; State ex rel. Boulevard Mortgage Co. v. Thompson, 113 Fla. 419, 151 So. 704. This court has followed the line of decisions represented by the former cases as indicated by,the case of Bailey v. Swartz, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 310.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury but without interest, and as so modified and entered, the judgment will stand affirmed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 2d 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maffucci-v-sabatino-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack