Napp v. Carman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Napp v. Carman

576 So. 2d 361, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1631, 1991 WL 27574

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1991

DocketNo. 90-0972

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 361 (Napp v. Carman) 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

Napp v. Carman, 576 So. 2d 361, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1631, 1991 WL 27574 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the issues raised on the main appeal. The cross appeal concerns the issue of prejudgment interest. There can be no dispute that the claim pursued in the action below was liquidated as it dealt with ownership of two bank accounts. The pleadings contain a prayer for interest, which can only refer to prejudgment interest, as the matter of postjudgment interest is governed by statute and need not be pled. It is not material that appellees failed to raise this issue by a motion post judgment. To the extent the final judgment failed to award prejudgment interest, it was erroneous and amenable to correction on appeal. “Prejudgment interest is an element of compensatory damages.” Miller v. Reinhart, 548 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985)).

We therefore affirm as to the appeal, reverse as to the cross appeal, and remand to permit the trial court to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the issues raised on the main appeal. The cross appeal concerns the issue of prejudgment interest. There can be no dispute that the claim pursued in the action below was liquidated as it dealt with ownership of two bank accounts. The pleadings contain a prayer for interest, which can only refer to prejudgment interest, as the matter of postjudgment interest is governed by statute and need not be pled. It is not material that appellees failed to raise this issue by a motion post judgment. To the extent the final judgment failed to award prejudgment interest, it was erroneous and amenable to correction on appeal. “Prejudgment interest is an element of compensatory damages.” Miller v. Reinhart, 548 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985)).

We therefore affirm as to the appeal, reverse as to the cross appeal, and remand to permit the trial court to award prejudgment interest at the legal rate.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 361, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1631, 1991 WL 27574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napp-v-carman-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack