McGurn v. Scott
| Decision Date | 02 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 77358,77358 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 1042 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly S207 Kenneth R. McGURN, Petitioner, v. Stephen A. SCOTT, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Dana G. Bradford, II and Lee S. Haramis of Baumer, Bradford, Walters & Liles, P.A., Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Jack M. Ross, P.A., Gainesville, for respondent.
We review McGurn v. Scott, 573 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), because of express and direct conflict with City of Miami v. Bailey & Dawes, 453 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We approve in part and quash in part the opinion under review and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
Scott filed suit against McGurn, trustee of the Simonton Ranch Trust, seeking a three-percent share of the profits earned by the trust, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The parties at no time stipulated to the trial court's reserving jurisdiction to consider any issues, nor were the proceedings bifurcated. The circuit court held a nonjury trial on January 30 and 31, 1990. On August 27, 1990, the circuit court entered judgment for Scott, awarding him $92,341.99 in damages and reserving jurisdiction to award appropriate costs, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees, upon proper motion by the parties.
On November 14, 1990, McGurn filed a timely notice of appeal. On December 3, 1990, Scott filed a motion with the district court requesting that the trial court be permitted to consider his motion for an award of interest and that the district court relinquish jurisdiction to the circuit court. The district court dismissed the appeal sua sponte, stating that the order presented for review was not final and that it did not have jurisdiction to review the case. However, the district court noted conflict between its decision and City of Miami.
In City of Miami the trial court reserved jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. 1 On appeal the district court first addressed the substantive matters at issue and then added that the trial court's assessment of prejudgment interest after appeal had been taken from the final judgment "was both procedurally and substantively correct." 453 So.2d at 187. Therefore, the issue before this Court is whether a trial court may issue a final appealable order while reserving jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest. 2
It is well settled that a judgment attains the degree of finality necessary to support an appeal when it adjudicates the merits of the cause and disposes of the action between the parties, leaving no judicial labor to be done except the execution of the judgment. Gore v. Hansen, 59 So.2d 538 (Fla.1952). Final judgments or orders "determine the rights and liabilities of all parties with reference to the matters in controversy and leave nothing of a judicial character to be done." Id. at 539. Further, the "piecemeal review of cases is not favored by an appellate court, and care should be exercised by trial judges to avoid, so far as possible, the necessity for successive appeals." Sax Enterprises v. David & Dash, 107 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla.1958).
However, this Court has previously held that "costs may be adjudicated after final judgment, after the expiration of the appeal period, during the pendency of an appeal, and even after the appeal has been concluded." Roberts v. Askew, 260 So.2d 492, 494 (Fla.1972). We have also held that proof of attorneys' fees may be presented for the first time after final judgment is issued. Cheek v. McGowan Elec. Supply Co., 511 So.2d 977 (Fla.1987). In addition, the district courts have consistently held that a trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to award costs or attorneys' fees does not affect the finality of an underlying judgment for purposes of appeal. See Casavan v. Land O'Lakes Realty, Inc., 526 So.2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); C.B.T. Realty Corp. v. St. Andrews Cove I Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 508 So.2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Dade County v. Davidson, 418 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Ruby Mountain Constr. & Dev. Corp. v. Raymond, 409 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The rationale behind these decisions is that an award of attorneys' fees or costs is ancillary to, and does not interfere with, the subject matter of the appeal and, thus, is incidental to the main adjudication. McGurn contends that the calculation of prejudgment interest is generally straightforward and ministerial and that a reservation of jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest should be treated in a manner similar to the taxing of costs and attorneys' fees. We disagree.
This Court has previously held that prejudgment interest is awarded as just compensation to those who are damaged by having their property withheld from them or destroyed. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985). Thus, "prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages." Id. at 214. An element of damages is not ancillary to the subject matter of the cause regardless of how straight-forward and ministerial the calculation of those damages may be. Therefore, the determination of prejudgment interest is directly related to the cause at issue and is not incidental to the main adjudication.
By reserving jurisdiction to address the issue of prejudgment interest, the instant trial court failed to dispose of all material issues in controversy and, therefore, the order was not final. It is improper for a trial judge to render an order which in all respects appears to be an ordinary final money judgment, but which leaves the determination of prejudgment interest for future adjudication.
In cases in which a portion of the damages has been determined and the prevailing party wishes interest to accrue on that amount, but not all of the issues have been decided, a trial court may issue an interlocutory order specifying the amount of damages that are no longer in controversy and directing that further proceedings resolve the remaining issues. Only when the remaining issues are decided should a final order encompassing all of the damages, including those from the interlocutory order, be entered. Therefore, if it is desirable to determine prejudgment interest damages separate from the determination of other damages, the trial court may issue an interlocutory order setting forth the damages already determined. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson & Larson, P.A. v. Tse Industries
...was irrevocably tied to the final judgment and to the judgment-based portion of TSE's malpractice claim. See generally McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla.1992) ("[A]n award of attorneys' fees or costs is ancillary to, and . . . is incidental to the main Further, the fact that the at......
-
Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank Of Northern Va.
...abrogated on other grounds as stated in Benvenuto v. Mahajan, 245 Conn. 495, 504 n. 4, 715 A.2d 743, 747 n. 4 (1998); McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042, 1043-44 (Fla.1992); Snodgrass v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 246 Kan. 371, 373-74, 789 P.2d 211, 213-15 (1990); Blake v. Blake, 341 Md. ......
-
City of Riviera Beach v. Shillingburg
...been squarely presented to the trial court below and, as such, we would be reluctant to reverse on this issue alone. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992); Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). However, landowners have not moved to strike the De......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Protective Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha, 92-1616
...and (2) such judgment, without dispute, mooted and therefore rendered ineffective the remaining counts of the complaint. McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992); J & L. Enters. v. Jones, 614 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 626 So.2d 206 There is also a final point which we neglec......
-
Statutory offers of settlement in Florida practice: uses, problems, and solutions.
...the bookend offers made to jointly liable parties in Hess v. Walton, 898 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2005). (36) E.g., McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Fla. (37) The conclusion that the legislature only contemplated offers which would encompass resolution of the entire case in a mann......
-
The life of a money judgment in Florida is limited - for only some purposes.
...denotes "an entire controversy." See Edmonson v. Green, 755 So. 2d 701,704 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1999). (47) The court in McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1992), said that "[i]t is well settled that a judgment attains the degree of finality necessary to support an appeal when it adju......
-
Five easy pieces: advice for getting your case to the appellate court (and back again) intact.
...626 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2001); State ex rel. Amer. Home Ins. Co. v. Seay, 355 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1978). (22) See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992) (citing (23) See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.600(b). (24) See, e.g., Ward v. Gibson, 340 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1976); Waltham A. Con......
-
Seeking appellate review - how to perfect your appeal.
...the amount of the judgment. Thus, an order reserving jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest may not yet be final. McGurn v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992). But exercise caution here. If the judgment has the appearance of finality, it may be final even if judicial labor remains. See ......