Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 55.04 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 55.04 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 55.04 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 55.04

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 55
JUDGMENTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 55.04
55.04 Judgments; rate of interest, bonds of county, etc.All judgments and decrees rendered on any bonds or other written evidence of debt of any county, special road and bridge districts or any county for the use and benefit of any special road and bridge districts or incorporated city or town or taxing district bear interest at the rate of 5 percent a year. When a judgment or decree is rendered on a bond or other written evidence of debt providing for a lesser rate of interest, the judgment or decree bears interest at the rate specified in such bond or other written evidence of debt.
History.s. 1, ch. 16835, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 4493(1); s. 9, ch. 67-254.

F.S. 55.04 on Google Scholar

F.S. 55.04 on CourtListener

Amendments to 55.04


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 55.04

Total Results: 3

Growers Packing Co. v. Community Bank of Homestead

134 B.R. 438, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17789, 1991 WL 260308

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 1991 | Docket: 1454143

Cited 3 times | Published

F.2d at 1455 (citing 2A Sutherland Stat.Const. § 55.04 (1984)). See also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886

Charter Schools USA, Inc. v. John Doe No. 93

152 So. 3d 657, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18438, 2014 WL 5836146

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 2014 | Docket: 2595529

Published

uses the term “rendition” only twice, once in section 55.04 which deals with the interest rate to be assessed

Sun Bank, NA v. Merrill Lynch

637 So. 2d 279, 1994 WL 140738

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 1994 | Docket: 423058

Published

Landrum asserted that the bank's actions violated section 55-4-212,[7] the court stated "this argument overlooks