ROBERT MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED, AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a case involving the dissolution accounting of a family corporation, clarifying that prejudgment interest should be calculated only on the net damage award owed to the estate after offsetting corporate debts, not on the full original judgment amount.
Prejudgment interest must be calculated on the net amount owed ($224,658.39, with appellees entitled to fifty percent thereof) from the time of the corporation's liquidation in 1993, not on the full original judgment amount of $639,887.67.
[1] A prior appellate decision limiting reversal to specific issues, such as the assessment of interest and attorney's fees, precludes the trial court on remand from reconsid…
[2] A party seeking to challenge the calculation of damages or the method of offsetting liabilities must do so in the initial appeal, and failure to do so waives the right to…
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 intelligence“After allocating the various debts pursuant to that court's findings, Robert, Jr. owed High Spec $221,658.39, fifty percent of which belonged to appellees as one of High Spec's two shareholders.”
Establishes the correct net damage amount that interest should be calculated upon, demonstrating the offset had already been applied in the prior opinion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Mumma, Jr. and High-Spec, Inc. were parties to a dissolution proceeding involving final accounting. The trial court found that Robert, Jr. owed…
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 Scope Of Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
WARNER, J.
We deny the motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
When this court last considered this case in Mumma v. Mumma, 780 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), we reviewed the trial court’s order on final accounting of the dissolution of a family corporation. We found no error in the final accounting, but we reversed for the assessment of interest on the award of damages to the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr. against Robert Mumma, Jr. and the assessment of attorney’s fees. In discussing the interest issue, we explained in our opinion, “After allocating the various debts pursuant to that court’s findings, Robert, Jr. owed High Spec $221,658.39, fifty percent of which belonged to appellees as one of High Spec’s two shareholders.” Id. at 1003 (emphasis supplied). We then reversed for calculation of interest on the damages.
Although our reversal was limited to the assessment of interest on the amount of the damages as set forth in our opinion and the determination of attorney’s fees, on remand Robert, Jr. attempted to inject multiple other issues in the case, all of which the trial court rejected, and we find to be without merit. However, the estate convinced the court that we had never determined how to calculate the interest. The trial court ultimately calculated interest on the original amount of the judgment, $639,887.67, without offsetting the debt owed to Robert, Jr. by the corporation, also found in the original final judgment.
This recalculation was beyond the directions on remand. We had already stated in our opinion the amount of the award as “$224,658.39, fifty percent of which belonged to appellees as one of High Spec’s two shareholders.” Had the appellees wished to challenge the calculation of damages, or the method of offsetting the liability of the corporation to Robert, Jr., they should have done so in the prior appeal. Having failed to do so, our remand instructed that the trial court should calculate prejudgment interest upon the damage award from the time of its liquidation in 1993. Thus, appellees were entitled to interest on fifty percent of $224,658.39, the net amount owed, from 1993.
Reversed and remanded for the court to award interest in accordance with the instructions in this opinion.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.