Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp.
55 So. 3d 567
| Fla. | 2010Background
- Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. sued Newport Operating Corp. and others for timeshare-related disputes at the Newport Beachside Hotel in Florida.
- A May 18, 2007 Final Judgment awarded Westgate $7,744,169 in damages and stated that prejudgment interest would be addressed in a separate order.
- At a June 2007 hearing, Newport challenged the damages amount and the trial court reserved ruling on prejudgment interest to a later time.
- On June 13, 2007 the trial court amended damages from $7,744,169 to $5,000,867; Westgate moved to assess prejudgment interest on the new amount.
- Both sides appealed to the Third District; the district court issued an unelaborated per curiam affirmance.
- After mandate, Westgate sought prejudgment interest again; Newport argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to McGurn v. Scott waiver, leading to a circuit court denial.
- The Supreme Court receded from McGurn, holding that a final judgment may reserve jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest, similar to attorney’s fees and costs, and remanded for calculation of prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a trial court reserve jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest after final judgment? | McGurn incorrectly forced waiver of interest upon appeal. | McGurn correctly prevented post-judgment reservations and waiver. | Yes; trial court may reserve jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest. |
| Should prejudgment interest be treated like attorneys' fees and costs for purposes of reservation? | Prejudgment interest is an element of damages, but practicably similar to fees/costs in disposition. | Prejudgment interest is a damages issue, not ancillary like fees or costs. | Yes; it may be treated like attorneys' fees and costs, allowing separate allocation. |
| If reservation is permitted, how should final judgment be reviewed on appeal? | Reservation avoids inadvertent waiver of interest and preserves entitlement on appeal. | Reservation could complicate review or lead to premature or improper appeals. | Final judgment reserving jurisdiction is appealable; entitlement and calculation can be reviewed post-appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992) (reservations of prejudgment interest can cause waivers; defined finality rule)
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (prejudgment interest as an element of damages; discrete issue for court)
- North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962) (public policy favoring merits adjudication)
- Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., 911 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2005) (stare decisis considering significant changes in law)