Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 95-2975
| Decision Date | 20 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2975,95-2975 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1923 UNDERHILL FANCY VEAL, INC., Underhill Feeds, Inc., and Richard Hester, Appellants, v. David PADOT and Suwannee River Holsteins, Ltd., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Dexter Douglass and Kimberly A. Humphrey of Douglass, Powell & Rudolph, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Roy Wasson, Miami; Barbara Green, Coral Gables; Robert J. Denson and Richard J. Delmond, Gainesville, for appellees.
Appellants, Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc., Underhill Feeds, Inc., and Richard Hester, challenge a final judgment rendered against them after a jury trial on appellees' claims for (1) misrepresentation, (2) intentional interference with a business relationship; (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) deceptive trade practices. We affirm the final judgment in all respects, but find one issue merits discussion: Whether the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from the day appellant, Hester, left the employ of appellees.
In 1987, David Padot and his aunt, general partners in a cow and beef operation known as Suwannee River Holsteins Limited, began to experiment with raising veal. In March 1989, after the death of his aunt, Padot began to consult with Richard Hester, a recognized expert in the veal industry, who came in to analyze the operation. At that time, Hester was procuring calves and troubleshooting for SwissLand Packing. Hester later became a sales and service representative for Zeck's Feed Service, which sold veal feed (powdered milk), for Underhill Feeds.
Padot offered to hire Hester to come manage his veal operation in August of 1989. Hester, who was living and farming in Illinois at the time, decided to come to work for Padot as the farm manager at a yearly salary of approximately $36,000 to $38,000, with benefits. Hester, however, did not close down his personal veal and grain farm in Illinois. He also continued to work for Zeck's selling Underhill feed, receiving a salary and a vehicle from Zeck's. 1 While still working for Zeck's, Hester switched Suwannee River to Underhill feed.
During the time that Hester worked for appellees, Suwannee River's promising veal business failed. At trial, Padot and Suwannee River presented a number of witnesses concerning questionable behavior and decisions made by Hester, which were alleged to have benefited Underhill. Hester and Underhill presented witnesses who contradicted the evidence.
The accountant for Suwannee River, Barbara Coulthurst, had prepared financial statements for Suwannee River in the regular course of business which were admitted into evidence. These documents showed that Suwannee River had a net worth of more than $3,000,000 in 1989, prior to Hester's employment, and had a net worth of negative $837,560 when Hester left. In calculating net worth, the accountant stated that her final figure was as of the exact date Hester left. No other evidence concerning damages was presented. The jury was instructed that damages were to be based on the difference between the value of the business before the incident and the value thereafter (an instruction which was not objected to by appellants). The final judgment entered was for damages in the amount of $1,950,000, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,031,523.20.
There are two prerequisites to the award of prejudgment interest as damages: (1) Out-of-pocket pecuniary loss, and (2) a fixed date of loss. H & S Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 667 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Prejudgment interest is generally not awarded in tort cases, because damages are generally too speculative to liquidate before final judgment. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co. v. Percefull, 653 So.2d 389 (Fla.1995). The rule is not absolute, however, and prejudgment interest may be awarded in tort ca...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Richert (In re Richert)
...2d 156, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co. , 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985) ; Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot , 677 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ; Machado v. Foreign Trade, Inc. , 478 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), disapproved on other grounds , Cheek v.......
-
National R.R. Passenger v. Rountree Transport
..."an ascertainable out-of-pocket loss occurring at a specific time prior to the entry of the judgment." Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So.2d 1378, 1380 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 1996). Applying these principles to the present case, we hold that the district court acted within its discreti......
-
800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd.
...of prejudgment interest as damages: (1) an out-of-pocket pecuniary loss and (2) a fixed date of loss. Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So.2d 1378, 1380 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1996). Prejudgment interest is generally not awarded, however, for tort damages because such damages are generall......
-
Gregg v. Commissioner
...there is an ascertainable out-of-pocket loss as the result of the loss of vested property rights. Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So. 2d 1378, 1380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). Petitioners further assert that petitioner's dignitary, or personal, right to be free from fraud and lies ......