McGurn v. Scott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGurn v. Scott

626 So. 2d 321, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11518

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1993

DocketNos. 92-2433, 90-3387

StatusPublished

This text of 626 So. 2d 321 (McGurn v. Scott) 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

McGurn v. Scott, 626 So. 2d 321, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11518 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment awarding appellee $92,341.99 as his share of the profits earned by a Trust in which both own an interest. Because appellant has failed to demonstrate a basis on the record for reversal, we affirm this final judgment.

However, we do agree that the award of prejudgment interest, which was made in a separate final order,¹ was improper. In Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), the supreme court approved this court’s decision in Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where it was stated that “for the purpose of assessing prejudgment interest, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date.” (Emphasis added). In the instant final order, the lower court, which acted as the fact finder, awarded prejudgment interest as of the date of the last day of trial and continuing until the date of entry of the final judgment some eight months later; the lower court did not, however, determine in the final judgment that damages were due as of a date certain prior to the entry of the final judgment. Accordingly, prejudgment interest was improperly awarded.

Therefore, the final judgment is AFFIRMED but the award of prejudgment interest is REVERSED. It should be noted that the award of costs made in the final order entered has not been challenged, and so the award of costs is not disturbed.

BOOTH, SMITH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment awarding appellee $92,341.99 as his share of the profits earned by a Trust in which both own an interest. Because appellant has failed to demonstrate a basis on the record for reversal, we affirm this final judgment.

However, we do agree that the award of prejudgment interest, which was made in a separate final order,¹ was improper. In Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), the supreme court approved this court’s decision in Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where it was stated that “for the purpose of assessing prejudgment interest, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date.” (Emphasis added). In the instant final order, the lower court, which acted as the fact finder, awarded prejudgment interest as of the date of the last day of trial and continuing until the date of entry of the final judgment some eight months later; the lower court did not, however, determine in the final judgment that damages were due as of a date certain prior to the entry of the final judgment. Accordingly, prejudgment interest was improperly awarded.

Therefore, the final judgment is AFFIRMED but the award of prejudgment interest is REVERSED. It should be noted that the award of costs made in the final order entered has not been challenged, and so the award of costs is not disturbed.

BOOTH, SMITH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 So. 2d 321, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgurn-v-scott-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack