Maingate Development, Inc. v. Lakeview Marketing Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maingate Development, Inc. v. Lakeview Marketing Group, Inc.

758 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7563, 2000 WL 787621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 21, 2000

DocketNos. 4D99-2175, 4D99-3979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 758 So. 2d 1290 (Maingate Development, Inc. v. Lakeview Marketing Group, 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

Maingate Development, Inc. v. Lakeview Marketing Group, Inc., 758 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7563, 2000 WL 787621 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, J.

We affirm a jury verdict awarding Lake-view $65,000 in damages for Maingate’s breach of a contract between the two. Since the jury’s verdict liquidated damages as of a date certain — February 13, 1996 (the date the contract was breached) until August 27, 1998 (the date of the verdict)— Lakeview is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of Lakeview’s loss. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985). As such, the trial court had a ministerial duty to add the appropriate amount of interest to the principal amount of damages awarded in the verdict. See Argonaut, 474 So.2d at 215.

Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of the trial court adding prejudgment interest calculated at the statutory rate to the final judgment.

GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

FARMER, J.

We affirm a jury verdict awarding Lake-view $65,000 in damages for Maingate’s breach of a contract between the two. Since the jury’s verdict liquidated damages as of a date certain — February 13, 1996 (the date the contract was breached) until August 27, 1998 (the date of the verdict)— Lakeview is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of Lakeview’s loss. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985). As such, the trial court had a ministerial duty to add the appropriate amount of interest to the principal amount of damages awarded in the verdict. See Argonaut, 474 So.2d at 215.

Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of the trial court adding prejudgment interest calculated at the statutory rate to the final judgment.

GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7563, 2000 WL 787621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maingate-development-inc-v-lakeview-marketing-group-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack