DAVID KUHNLEIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL., 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 Florida Supreme Court held that taxpayers seeking refunds are not entitled to prejudgment interest, and are not entitled to postjudgment interest because there is no final money judgment. The Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of both prejudgment and postjudgment interest in this class action tax refund case.
The Court held that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest in an action to recover a tax refund. Additionally, because there is no final money judgment in this case, there is no entitlement to postjudgment interest under these circumstances.
[1] There is no entitlement to prejudgment interest in an action to recover a tax refund.
[2] Entitlement to postjudgment interest requires a final money judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest in this action to recover a tax refund”
Establishes the holding that prejudgment interest is not available in tax refund actions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves class plaintiffs who are entitled to tax refunds. The circuit court had previously approved a refund plan, and the plaintiffs subse…
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 Common Fund Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a final order on class plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and a final order on class plaintiffs’ motion for postjudgment interest. These orders have been entered since our decision in Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717 (Fla.1994), petition for cert. filed, 63 U.S.L.W. 3660 (U.S. Feb. 27, 1995) (No. 94-1443). The district court certified the orders to have a great effect upon the proper administration of justice throughout this state and to require immediate resolution by this Court. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(5), Fla. Const. The issue in this case is whether those individuals who are due a refund are entitled to prejudgment and postjudgment interest. We answer the question in respect to prejudgment interest in the negative, finding that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest in this action to recover a tax refund. State ex rel. Four-Fifty Two-Thirty Corp. v. Dickinson, 322 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1975); Mailman v. Green, 111 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1959). We answer the question in respect to post-judgment interest by determining that there is not a final money judgment, and therefore there is not at present an entitlement to postjudgment interest in this case under these circumstances. Flack v. Graham, 461 So. 2d 82 (Fla.1982); State ex rel. Four-Fifty Two-Thirty Corp., 322 So. 2d at 529; Mailman, 111 So. 2d at 268.
We approve the circuit court’s denial of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. We hereby relinquish jurisdiction to the circuit court and order that the circuit court within 30 days from the date of the filing of this decision finalize this action by determining and entering an order as to attorney fees and costs to be paid out of the common fund and entering an order to implement the refund plan approved by the circuit court.
Any party who seeks review by this Court of the circuit court’s order on attorney fees and costs or of the order implementing the refund plan approved by the circuit court shall petition this Court for review within ten days of the circuit court’s entry of these orders. Briefs for that appeal will be expedited, and if oral argument is granted by this Court, it will be scheduled on an expedited basis.
We reserve jurisdiction to take such further action necessary to implement the refund plan.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quinton Dryden v. Madison Cnty., 672 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…n both eases, the outcome in the first case would control the outcome of the second case. We agree with the county that no judgment was entered in the 1992 case, and the award constituted prejudgment interest. In Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1995) (Kuhnlein II), the court determined that there was no entitlement to prejudgment interest in a tax refund case, and reaffirmed that postjudgment interest could only run from the time of a final judgment. Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm…1 / 2
-
Quinton Dryden v. Madison Cnty., 696 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1997)…d for disposition on remand. The County continued to assess and collect the assessments after this Court’s Final Judgment dated November 25,1991 and now must make refund. On these facts, the majority’s reliance on Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1995), is misplaced. In Kuhnlein, we found no entitlement to post-judgment interest in the absence of a final money judgment. Id. Kuhnlein is distinguishable because here the parties by stipulation clearly contemplated that the determination of…1 / 3
-
State v. Brock, 673 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…om calculating their tax obligation without accounting for that credit. We also affirm the trial court’s conclusion that appellees are entitled to post-judgment interest on that amount. Unlike the circumstance in Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1995), this is a final money judgment, and therefore there is now an entitlement to post-judgment interest. In that ease the Florida Supreme Court expressly ruled that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest on a tax refund, but did not…
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
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1994)
- Flack v. Graham, 461 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1984)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Four-Fifty Two-Thirty Corp. v. Dickinson, 322 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1975)
- Mailman v. Green, 111 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1959)