Explainer: Court Clarifies Exception to Rule on Interest Accrual in Tort Cases
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that interest on an award is accrued from the date a judgment — rather than a verdict — is entered. The court also held an exception only applies when a reversal on appeal produces an initial money judgment, rather than a modification of a judgment.
January 10, 2019 at 03:13 PM
3 minute read
A Florida appeals court has clarified a rule governing the state's appellate procedure regarding money judgments and interest.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday in a medical malpractice case hinged on Rule 9.340(c) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The rule holds “if a judgment of reversal is entered that requires the entry of a money judgment on a verdict, the mandate shall be deemed to require such money judgment to be entered as of the date of the verdict.”
Attorneys for Susan Kalitan, the plaintiff in the case, cited the rule in their motion for an amended final judgment, requesting that interest accrue from the date of the verdict rather than the judgment.
The appellate court had previously weighed in on Kalitan's underlying lawsuit against Dr. Robert Alexander and others for a botched medical procedure that damaged her esophagus. The Fourth DCA ruled favorably to the plaintiff in 2015 by reversing and remanding a trial court's order to reduce her jury award in adherence to a statute limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.
Although the trial court complied with the Fourth DCA's findings, its decision to grant Kalitan's motion was ultimately nullified following an appeal by the defense.
Read the ruling:
“Rule 9.340(c) is an exception to the general rule that interest runs from the date a judgment is entered,” the court wrote. “The appellate rule exception only applies when reversal on appeal results in the initial entry of a money judgment, not when reversal on appeal requires the modification of a previously entered money judgment.”
The three-judge panel held because their earlier reversal modified an existing judgment — instead of producing one — ”the rule does not apply, and the trial court erred in modifying the final judgment so that interest would run from the date of the verdict.” Wednesday's ruling orders the lower court to reinstate the provisions of the original judgment. This will include the reduction of the interest rate from 6 percent to 4.5 percent.
One of Kalitan's lawyers, Scott Schlesinger, was in trial when reached for comment by the DBR. Bryan Hofeld, a litigator with the Schlesinger Law Office in Fort Lauderdale, told the DBR, “We respect the court's ruling on this issue.” The plaintiff's appellate attorneys, Philip Burlington and Nichole Segal of West Palm Beach firm Burlington & Rockenbach, declined to comment.
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer trial lawyer Robert Cousins directed inquiries to the defense's appellate lawyer Dinah Stein. Stein, a managing partner at Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein in Miami, did not respond to requests for comment.
Related stories:
Miami Judge Sides With Jade Ocean Lenders Seeking Repayment
11th Circuit Upholds $1.5M of $2.1M Commodities Fraud Judgment
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readUS Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readNorth Carolina Courts Switch to Digital, Face Extreme Weather in 2024
Trending Stories
- 1‘Facebook’s Descent Into Toxic Masculinity’ Prompts Stanford Professor to Drop Meta as Client
- 2Pa. Superior Court: Sorority's Interview Notes Not Shielded From Discovery in Lawsuit Over Student's Death
- 3Kraken’s Chief Legal Officer Exits, Eyes Role in Trump Administration
- 4DOT Nominee Duffy Pledges Safety, Faster Infrastructure Spending in Confirmation Hearing
- 5'Younger and Invigorated Bench': Biden's Legacy in New Jersey Federal Court
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250