Olde Discount Corp. v. Platt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Olde Discount Corp. v. Platt

722 So. 2d 926, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15689

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

DocketNos. 97-04858, 98-01375

StatusPublished

This text of 722 So. 2d 926 (Olde Discount Corp. v. Platt) 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

Olde Discount Corp. v. Platt, 722 So. 2d 926, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15689 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Olde Discount Corporation challenges the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration panel’s award of punitive damages, the award of prejudgment interest on the punitive damages, the denial of Olde Discount’s motion for attorney’s fees, and the award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner in the arbitration proceeding. We find merit only in Olde Discount’s argument that prejudgment interest is not available on punitive damages. See Eaton Vance Distrib., Inc. v. Ulrich, 692 So.2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 705 So.2d 8 (Fla.1997). On this issue, we certify conflict with Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc., 652 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we reverse the award of prejudgment interest and direct that it be stricken from the final judgment. All other issues raised by Olde Discount are affirmed without discussion.

FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Olde Discount Corporation challenges the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration panel’s award of punitive damages, the award of prejudgment interest on the punitive damages, the denial of Olde Discount’s motion for attorney’s fees, and the award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner in the arbitration proceeding. We find merit only in Olde Discount’s argument that prejudgment interest is not available on punitive damages. See Eaton Vance Distrib., Inc. v. Ulrich, 692 So.2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 705 So.2d 8 (Fla.1997). On this issue, we certify conflict with Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc., 652 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Accordingly, we reverse the award of prejudgment interest and direct that it be stricken from the final judgment. All other issues raised by Olde Discount are affirmed without discussion.

FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 So. 2d 926, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olde-discount-corp-v-platt-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack