187 So. 3d 863
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- On October 11, 2011 a jury awarded $7,509,510 with Shoemaker 40% at fault for Sliger’s death in a medical malpractice action.
- Post-trial, the trial court reduced noneconomic damages under section 766.118(2) to $1,386,260 and entered final judgment.
- After the decision, the cases were appealed; this Court issued a per curiam affirmance in 2013, and the Florida Supreme Court later decided McCall in 2014.
- Following McCall, the Fifth DCA reversed the reduced noneconomic damages and remanded to enter amended judgment without the 766.118 reduction.
- Appellee proposed an amended judgment awarding post-trial interest from the jury verdict date; the trial court granted interest from the verdict date.
- The issue before the court is whether post-trial interest accrues from the verdict date under Rule 9.340(c) or from the original judgment date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 9.340(c) applicability to amended judgments | Sliger urged 9.340(c) controls when a money judgment is entered after reversal. | Shoemaker argued 9.340(c) applies only where the mandate requires entry of a new money judgment. | Rule 9.340(c) does not apply here. |
| Start date for post-trial interest when judgment amount is amended | Interest should start from the verdict date per 9.340(c). | Interest should start from the original judgment date since a money judgment existed | Interest accrues from the date of the original judgment. |
| Effect of Amerace, Green, Moore, Ferayorni lines of precedent | Ferayorni aligns with post-verdict accrual from verdict; Amerace supports verdict-date accrual only when no judgment existed. | Amerace controls when a money judgment was entered; Ferayorni is distinguishable; Moore supports the original-judgment start. | Agree with Amerace and Moore; reject Ferayorni’s reasoning; hold accrual from original judgment date. |
| Disposition on remand | Amended judgment should reflect interest from verdict date per appellee's proposed judgment. | Amended judgment should reflect interest from the original judgment date. | Reverse and remand for amended judgment awarding post-trial interest from the original judgment date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amerace Corp. v. Stallings, 823 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2002) (post-verdict interest start point when judgment entered after remittitur/remand)
- Green v. Rety, 616 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1993) (verdict controls when judgment withheld and remitted damages)
- Moore v. St. Cloud Utilities, 355 So.2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (support for accrual from verdict date in remittitur/remand context)
- Ferayorni v. Hyundai, 876 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (held rule 9.340(c) broadly; later distinguished by Amerace and Moore)
- Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So.3d 894 (Fla.2014) (holding that § 766.118 constitutional as applied to multiple claimants)
- Shoemaker v. Sliger, 127 So.3d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (unpublished table decision affirming per curiam affirmance)