the final judgment, alleging that the trial court committed several errors in the course of the trial. Murphy and Jain also appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We affirm both of the final orders on appeal. As to Cohen’s appeal from that portion of the final judgment awarding only simple interest, it is well-settled that where the note contains no express provision for the compounding of interest, the holder of the note is entitled only to simple interest. Stramondo v. Jet 1, Inc., 865 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Pitts v. Pastore, 561 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); PDGS, Ltd. v. Motwani, 729 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lyons v. Wyman, 658 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>) Finally, we cannot say that the trial court
holding that summary judgment is unwarranted if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party holding that a motion for directed verdict should be granted if there is no evidence on which a jury could legally base a verdict for damages against the moving party holding that an appellate court viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to nonmoving party can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party holding that the nonmoving party must present specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party