Case Name: HORACIO O. FERREA NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION, INC., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. MOROSO PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee/Cross Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-12-06
Citations: 553 So. 2d 336
Docket Number: Nos. 88-2370, 88-2371
Parties: HORACIO O. FERREA NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION, INC., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. MOROSO PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
Judges: HERSEY, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 553
Pages: 336–339

Head Matter:
HORACIO O. FERREA NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION, INC., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. MOROSO PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
Nos. 88-2370, 88-2371.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 6, 1989.
Lawrence Bieler of Goldstein & Tanen, P.A., Miami, for appellant/cross appellee.
Frank J. Bennardo, Boca Raton, for ap-pellee/cross appellant.

Opinion:
GUNTHER, Judge.
Horacio O. Ferrea North American Division, Inc. (Ferrea) appeals a final judgment denying it prejudgment interest and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Moroso Performance Prod. Inc. (Moroso) cross appeals the award of the compensatory damages to Ferrea.
In June 1987, Ferrea sued Moroso seeking damages for breach of contract and payment due on open account, as well as prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The complaint alleged that during 1986, Ferrea sold automotive engine valves to Moroso under two invoices which Moroso failed to pay. Moroso answered, denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that the engine valves were defective. Trial was set for the week of July 25, 1988. On July 22, 1988, just three days prior to trial, Moroso moved to amend its answer to include a second affirmative defense of setoff. The setoff was based on an earlier payment made by Moroso for a 1982 shipment of valves which Moroso claimed had been defective. Moroso's motion to amend was denied and the matter proceeded to trial. During trial, Moroso moved to amend the answer on the same grounds and to amend to conform to the evidence.
The crucial consideration in both motions to amend and motions to amend to conform with the evidence is the test of prejudice. New River Yachting Center v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 415 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1982); Lasar Manufacturing Co. v. Bachanov, 436 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(b). Generally, leave to amend should not be denied unless the privilege has been abused or the pleading is clearly not amendable. New River Yachting, 407 So.2d at 609. However, the trial court's decision to permit or refuse amendment to pleadings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Lasar, 436 So.2d at 237.
We conclude that the record supports the trial court's finding that Moroso's amendment would concern matters that were known to it for a long, long time and that the plaintiff would be prejudiced since they had not been able to conduct any discovery or prepare a defense to Moroso's assertions. The record also reveals that the trial court did not err in denying Moro-so motion to amend to conform to the evidence. In light of the pleadings, the evidence relating to the alleged setoff was correctly excluded by the trial court on the grounds of relevancy. Therefore, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to form the basis for an amendment to pleadings. Since we conclude that Moro-so's arguments are without merit, we affirm the award of compensatory damages.
As to Ferrea's claim for prejudgment interest, since the verdict has liquidated damages as of a certain date, the trial court erred in denying Ferrea prejudgment interest. See Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985). Contrary to the trial court's finding, the record does not contain substantial competent evidence to support the ruling that the parties had "an express agreement, either by implication and/or by course of dealing, that there should be no interest." Thus, we reverse the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest to Ferrea.
Finally, we affirm the trial court's denial of attorney's fees to Ferrea pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Moroso's position in the instant litigation was not "so clearly devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable." Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982).
In conclusion, we affirm the award of compensatory damages and the denial of attorney's fees. However, we reverse the denial of prejudgment interest and remand to the trial court to enter an amended final judgment awarding prejudgment interest to Ferrea.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.