653 So. 2d 1067 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1995
We find no error in any of the issues raised by Appellant, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (“Mercedes”). We agree, however, with Florescue & Andrews’ contention on cross-appeal that it is entitled to recover prejudgment interest from the date the debt was liquidated by the lower court’s judgment.
Although unstated in the court’s order, the parties appear to agree that the lower court concluded Florescue & Andrews waived its prejudgment interest claim. We believe that the circumstances presented in the record
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
. Tillman v. Howell, 634 So.2d 268, 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Getelman v. Levey, 481 So.2d 1236, 1240-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1986).
. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985).