Mode, Inc. v. Hardrives Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mode, Inc. v. Hardrives Co.

583 So. 2d 819, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8401, 1991 WL 158568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1991

DocketNos. 89-2956, 90-2510

StatusPublished

This text of 583 So. 2d 819 (Mode, Inc. v. Hardrives Co.) 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

Mode, Inc. v. Hardrives Co., 583 So. 2d 819, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8401, 1991 WL 158568 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment and orders on appeal except the determination as to interest.

Because competent substantial evidence exists to support the judgment entered below, we find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial to Mode, Inc. We also find no error in the admission of evidence at trial.

As to the post-verdict proceedings, we affirm the determination of attorney’s fees but reverse the determination as to prejudgment interest. Hardrives is entitled to interest from the earliest date that payment was properly demanded from Mode, Inc. before judgment. For the major part of damages recovered, that date was the date of filing a claim of lien. On remand we direct the trial court to utilize the existing record to award interest from the earliest date reflected in the record that claim for payment was made, and to award interest accordingly.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment and orders on appeal except the determination as to interest.

Because competent substantial evidence exists to support the judgment entered below, we find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial to Mode, Inc. We also find no error in the admission of evidence at trial.

As to the post-verdict proceedings, we affirm the determination of attorney’s fees but reverse the determination as to prejudgment interest. Hardrives is entitled to interest from the earliest date that payment was properly demanded from Mode, Inc. before judgment. For the major part of damages recovered, that date was the date of filing a claim of lien. On remand we direct the trial court to utilize the existing record to award interest from the earliest date reflected in the record that claim for payment was made, and to award interest accordingly.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 So. 2d 819, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8401, 1991 WL 158568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mode-inc-v-hardrives-co-fladistctapp-1991.