664 So. 2d 1041 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1995
Lead Opinion
We affirm in all respects except as to the award of post-judgment interest on that part of the final judgment which constitutes an award of pre-judgment interest. See Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Millar, 627 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 984 (Fla.1994); Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Commercio, S.A, C.A., 582 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); LaFaye v. Presser, 554 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Smith, 527 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also the reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court by inference in In re: Amendments to Florida Small Claims Rules, 601 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1992).
We also certify conflict with Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), which holds the contrary. The fifth district in Peavy stated:
If Perez does mean what it appears to mean, we are bound to disagree. In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214r-215 (Fla.1985), our supreme court determined that prejudgment interest is simply an element of pecuniary damages. Under this loss theory of damage, the failure of the defendant to surrender monies it owed to the plaintiff was itself a wrongful deprivation of the plaintiff’s property, which the final judgment restores to the plaintiff. Once this element of damages is awarded in the final judgment, prejudgment interest, like all other elements of damage, becomes part of a single total sum adjudged to be due and owing. See Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The amount awarded for prejudgment interest, like all other components of the ‘judgment’, automatically bears interest as provided by section 55.03, Florida Statutes.
[[Image here]]
Section 55.03, Florida Statutes, when applied to a judgment that contains an award of prejudgment interest, does not impermissibly compound interest on interest; rather it awards interest on a final judgment that remains unpaid after entry.
Affirmed in part. Reversed only as to post-judgment interest on pre-judgment interest; conflict certified.
Concurrence Opinion
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the judgment, but reluctantly concur in the reversal of that part of the final judgment which constitutes an award of interest on prejudgment interest only because that result is in accord with the prior decisions of this court in Central Constructors, Inc. v. Spectrum Contracting Co., 621 So.2d 526, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and followed in Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Millar, 627 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). However, I agree with the logic of Judge Altenbernd’s special concurrence in Sciandra v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 638 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), that prejudgment interest, as an element of damages, merges into the final judgment, and therefore an award of prejudgment interest should be treated no differently than any other element of damages.
This court in Central Constructors held that postjudgment interest may not be awarded on that portion of a damages award which constitutes prejudgment interest. At that time we simply followed the “lead” of the first district, as set forth in LaFaye v. Presser, 554 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Smith, 527 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The legal basis of the holding, as enunciated in these cases, is that the award of interest on a sum that is itself interest is tantamount to an improper award of compound interest.
I agree with the reasoning of the fifth district in Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), which stated that post-judgment interest may be awarded on a damages award which includes prejudgment interest. In Peavy, the fifth district explained that the supreme court in Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), had held that prejudgment interest is simply another element of pecuniary damages, as the failure of the defendant to surrender monies owed to the plaintiff is itself a wrongful deprivation of the plaintiffs property. The fifth district reasoned that once this element of damages is established, as in the case of any other element, the amount awarded should automatically bear postjudgment interest.
I agree with the certification of conflict with Peavy, as we did in Central Bank of the South v. Seppala & Aho Construction Co., 658 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
