Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Florescue & Andrews Investments, Inc.
This text of 653 So. 2d 1067 (Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Florescue & Andrews Investments, 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.
Opinion
We find no error in any of the issues raised by Appellant, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (“Mercedes”). We agree, however, with Florescue & Andrews’ contention on cross-appeal that it is entitled to recover prejudgment interest from the date the debt was liquidated by the lower court’s judgment.
Although unstated in the court’s order, the parties appear to agree that the lower court concluded Florescue & Andrews waived its prejudgment interest claim. We believe that the circumstances presented in the record [1068]*1068below do not amount to a waiver. Floreseue & Andrews withdrew the claim in an amendment to its complaint filed pursuant to a lower court order that granted Mercedes’ motion to strike. Additionally, prejudgment interest does not have to be pled,1 and an award of prejudgment interest is non-discretionary once the amount of loss is ascertained.2 Accordingly, we remand to the lower court with instructions to fix and award the amount of prejudgment interest to which Floreseue & Andrews is entitled.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
653 So. 2d 1067, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3671, 1995 WL 170018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercedes-benz-of-north-america-inc-v-florescue-andrews-investments-fladistctapp-1995.