Rallis v. Mark Equipment Center of South Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rallis v. Mark Equipment Center of South Florida, Inc.

685 So. 2d 936, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13139, 1996 WL 724212

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 1996·No. Nos. 94-1575, 94-1561·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Of the numerous issues raised by both the appellants/cross-appellees and the appel-lees/cross-appellants in this appeal from a final judgment finding corporate shareholders breached fiduciary duties, we find merit only in the claims regarding prejudgment interest and the statutory penalty award. The appellees/cross-appellants are entitled to prejudgment interest on the Powerline property award from the date of the sale of the property and on the remaining awards from the date of the verdict. See Pine Ridge at Haverhill Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hovnanian of Palm Beach II, Inc., 629 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 978 (Fla.1994); Getelman v. Levey, 481 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1986).

As conceded at oral argument, the statutory penalty portion of the judgment must be vacated because the statute imposing the penalty was repealed. See K.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 608 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In all other respects, the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed and vacated in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Of the numerous issues raised by both the appellants/cross-appellees and the appel-lees/cross-appellants in this appeal from a final judgment finding corporate shareholders breached fiduciary duties, we find merit only in the claims regarding prejudgment interest and the statutory penalty award. The appellees/cross-appellants are entitled to prejudgment interest on the Powerline property award from the date of the sale of the property and on the remaining awards from the date of the verdict. See Pine Ridge at Haverhill Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hovnanian of Palm Beach II, Inc., 629 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 978 (Fla.1994); Getelman v. Levey, 481 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1986).

As conceded at oral argument, the statutory penalty portion of the judgment must be vacated because the statute imposing the penalty was repealed. See K.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 608 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In all other respects, the judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed and vacated in part.

Rallis v. Mark Equipment Center of South Florida, Inc., 685 So. 2d 936, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13139, 1996 WL 724212 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

685 So. 2d 936 (Rallis v. Mark Equipment Center of South Florida, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related