Vanech v. Hartsfield & Son, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vanech v. Hartsfield & Son, Inc.

444 So. 2d 431, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2511

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 444 So. 2d 431 (Vanech v. Hartsfield & Son, 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.

Bluebook

Vanech v. Hartsfield & Son, Inc., 444 So. 2d 431, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23446 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment in this mechanic’s lien foreclosure and contract action. One contention raised by appellant is that the award of prejudgment interest was not proper because there was not a conclusive determination of the exact amount due at the time of appellees’ demand upon appellant for payment. We affirm the award of prejudgment interest as proper in a suit for payment of a debt due under a contract. See Parker v. Brinson Construction Co., 78 So.2d 873 (Fla.1955); Beckerman v. Greenbaum, 439 So.2d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Robinson v. Peterson, 375 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Peter Marich & Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Town of Longboat Key v. Carl E. Widell & Son, 362 So.2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, 227 So.2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Compare Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Carre, 436 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (amount of debt not established by contract).

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment in this mechanic’s lien foreclosure and contract action. One contention raised by appellant is that the award of prejudgment interest was not proper because there was not a conclusive determination of the exact amount due at the time of appellees’ demand upon appellant for payment. We affirm the award of prejudgment interest as proper in a suit for payment of a debt due under a contract. See Parker v. Brinson Construction Co., 78 So.2d 873 (Fla.1955); Beckerman v. Greenbaum, 439 So.2d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Robinson v. Peterson, 375 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Peter Marich & Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Town of Longboat Key v. Carl E. Widell & Son, 362 So.2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, 227 So.2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Compare Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Carre, 436 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (amount of debt not established by contract).

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 So. 2d 431, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanech-v-hartsfield-son-inc-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack