Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the appellants, Martin F. Greenberg, Stanley H. Kuperstein, and Karl M. Sachs, contested a trial court's decision concerning the non-award of prejudgment interest on their damage award. The appellee, Harry Grossman, cross-appealed the aggregation of damage counts, but the appellate court found this cross-appeal meritless. Following a remand for a new trial on damages, the jury awarded damages in four categories: fraud, punitive damages, civil theft, and breach of fiduciary duty. Greenberg sought prejudgment interest and trebling of the civil theft award, which the trial court denied. The appellate court determined that prejudgment interest should apply to liquidated damages deriving from ascertainable payments, reversing the trial court's denial. Furthermore, the court mandated Greenberg to elect between punitive damages and a trebled civil theft award, highlighting potential attorney's fees under Florida Statute section 772.11 (1995) if he chose the latter. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial judge to award prejudgment interest on determinable damages.
Legal Issues Addressed
Aggregation of Damage Countssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellee's cross-appeal challenged the aggregation of damage counts, but the appellate court found no merit in this argument.
Reasoning: The appellee, Harry Grossman, cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly aggregated three separate compensatory damage counts. The appellate court found no merit in the cross-appeal.
Award of Attorney's Fees under Civil Theft Statutesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court indicated that if Greenberg elected the trebled civil theft award, he might be eligible for attorney's fees under the relevant statute.
Reasoning: Greenberg must choose between the punitive damages and the trebled civil theft award, with the possibility of attorney's fees if he elects the latter under Florida Statute section 772.11 (1995).
Election between Punitive and Trebled Civil Theft Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Greenberg was required to elect between receiving punitive damages or a trebled civil theft award, as he could not recover both.
Reasoning: The appellate court clarified that Greenberg could not recover both punitive damages and the trebled civil theft award.
Prejudgment Interest on Liquidated Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court held that prejudgment interest is applicable to damages that are liquidated and based on ascertainable out-of-pocket losses.
Reasoning: The court noted that when damages are liquidated and based on out-of-pocket losses, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of loss.