MARK AND BARBARA OKUN, EDITH BRAUNSTEIN, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
LITWIN SECURITIES, INC., AND FELIX SMOLENSKY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that parties are entitled to prejudgment interest on an arbitration award from the date of the award until it is confirmed as a judgment, and post-judgment interest from the date of confirmation until satisfaction.
[1] An arbitration award, once confirmed by a court, becomes a judgment upon which post-judgment interest accrues from the date of entry until satisfaction.
[2] A party is entitled to prejudgment interest on a liquidated claim from the date payment is due.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were awarded damages in arbitration. After multiple appeals regarding vacating the award, the trial court confirmed the award but denied a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interest On Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
In October of 1992 Mark and Barbara Okun and Edith Braunstein were awarded Eighty Nine Thousand Dollars in an arbitration against Litwin Securities. Prior to the Okuns and Braunstein filing their motion to confirm that award, Litwin filed, and the trial court granted, a motion to vacate the award. The Okuns and Braunstein appealed that order, this court reversed, see Okun v. Litwin, 619 So .2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and certiorari was denied. See Litwin v. Okun, 629 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1993).
In July of 1993, Litwin filed an amended motion to vacate arbitration alleging fraud in the arbitration process.
The trial court denied that motion, Litwin appealed, and this court affirmed. See Litwin v. Okun, 636 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The Okuns and Braunstein then filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award and sought an award of post arbitration interest.
On May 19, 1994, the trial court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the Okuns and Braunstein motion for post arbitration interest. From that denial the Okuns and Braunstein appeal.
Post judgment interest is available as a matter of law once damages have been liquidated by a judgment. See Argonaut Insurance v. May Plumbing, 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985).
Prejudgment interest must be awarded, where the claim is liquidated, from the date when payment of the claim is due. Metropolitan Dade County v. Bouterse, Per ez, & Fabregas Architects, Inc., 463 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
An arbitration award is akin to a verdict, see U.S.A.A. v. Smith, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and once an arbitration award is confirmed by the court it becomes, like a verdict, the judgment of that court and interest on that judgment runs from date of its entry until satisfaction of same. See Haskell v. Forest Land & Timber Co., 426 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 570 So. 2d 1303 (Fla.1990).
The trial court may not award interest which predates an arbitration award. Pharmacy Management Service v. Perschon, 622 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Goldberger v. Hofco, Inc., 422 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Although the trial court properly did not award interest which predated the arbitration award, the Okuns and Braunstein were entitled to prejudgment interest, on the amount awarded at arbitration, from the date of that award in October of 1992, until that award was reduced to judgment in May of 1994, pursuant to their motion for confirmation.1 The arbitration award liquidated the amount owed the Okuns and Braunstein from the date of its entry until that award was reduced to judgment, thus prejudgment interest was not only proper but was required. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Bouterse, Perez, & Fabregas. See and compare Gadd v. Kelley, 66 Haw. 431, 667 P. 2d 251 (1983) (prejudgment interest commences on day arbitration award is rendered, post judgment interest commences upon confirmation of arbitration award); Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Brothers, Inc., 438 Mich. 488, 475 N.W. 2d 704 (1991) (same); see also Recreational Development Co. v. American Const., 749 P. 2d 1002 (Col.App.1987) (entry of an arbitration award represents liquidated sum which accrues interest).
The Okuns and Braunstein were also entitled to post judgment interest on the judgment entered pursuant to their motion to confirm the arbitration award. Post judgment interest properly accrued on the Okuns and Braunstein judgment from May of 1994, and will continue to do so until Litwin satisfies same. See Argonaut; Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBro, 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (post judgment interest on fee award proper from date court determined fee award was proper).
See and compare West v. Jamison, 182 Ga. App. 565, 356 S.E. 2d 659 (1987) (party entitled to post judgment interest following confirmation of arbitration award); Paola v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 490 A. 2d 498 (R.I.1985) (a party is entitled to post judgment interest from date of confirmation of arbitration award except where that party has appealed that confirmation then post judgment interest is due from date of affir-mance).
Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying post arbitration prejudgment interest and post judgment interest is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
. This is especially true where the Okuns and Braunstein were not responsible for the delay in reducing the award to judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc. v. Ulrich, 692 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…g Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Gilliard v. Wright, 667 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Zucker v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 589 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We certify that this portion of our opinion is in conflict with Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc., 652 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 660 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1995). All other issues raised by Vance and Whitaker are affirmed without discussion. Accordingly, the final judgment confirming the arbitration award is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rem…
-
Preserve Ests. v. Bryant Contracting Corp., 657 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…and counterclaims submitted,” and appellee had submitted to the arbitrator a claim for interest on the contract amount also claimed, it was error for the trial judge to add pre-award interest to the amount awarded by the arbitrator. Okun v. Litwin, 652 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Goldberger v. Hofco Inc., 422 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The fact that Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985), requires a court to add p…
-
The Keyes Co. v. Anne Marie Spencer and Patricia DiGiacomo, 16 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ntitled to interest on the amount of the deposit that she recovered in the arbitration award from the date of the arbitration award, which was September 5, 2006. We agree. The law governing this issue was set out in Okun v. Litwin Securities, Inc., 652 So. 2d 387, 388-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), as follows: Prejudgment interest must be awarded, where the claim is liquidated, from the date when payment of the claim is due. Metropolitan Dade County v. Bouterse, Perez, & Fabregas Architects, Inc., 463 So. 2d 526 (F…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Guy E. Smith and his wife, 527 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Bouterse, 463 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Pharmacy Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Perschon, 622 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBRO, 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Goldberger v. Hofco, Inc., 422 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Harris, 426 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Mark and Barbara Okun v. Litwin Sec. Inc., 619 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)