From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, Department of Revenue v. Brock

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 12, 1996
673 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-3259.

May 7, 1996. Rehearing Denied June 12, 1996.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Jeffrey M. Dikman and C. Lynne Overton, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

George D. Gabel, Jr., Joel B. Toomey and Karl B. Hanson, III of Gabel Hair, Jacksonville, for Appellees.


The State of Florida appeals a final summary judgment ruling that appellees/plaintiffs below were entitled to a tax refund with interest. The dispute over the tax assessment was based upon the Department of Revenue's interpretation that section 440.57(7), Florida Statutes (1989), obligated the Florida Hotel-Motel Self Insurers Fund to pay the premium tax in section 624.509, Florida Statutes (1989), without entitlement to the salary credit provided in section 624.509(5). For the reasons expressed in our opinion in State of Florida, Dep't of Revenue v. Central Dade Malpractice Trust Fund, 673 So.2d 899, released on this date, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that appellees are entitled to the salary credit and to a refund of the overpayment of tax resulting from 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 case the Florida Supreme Court expressly ruled that there is no entitlement to prejudgment interest on a tax refund, but did not hold that there cannot be post-judgment interest on a tax refund. Instead, the court stated that it was affirming the denial of post-judgment interest because there was not yet a final money judgment, and relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court for entry of a final order. See also Dryden v. Madison County, Florida, 672 So.2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We affirm appellees' entitlement to post-judgment interest. See Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm Beach, 579 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1991).

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD, J., concur.


Summaries of

State, Department of Revenue v. Brock

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 12, 1996
673 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

State, Department of Revenue v. Brock

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANT, v. JAMES E. BROCK…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jun 12, 1996

Citations

673 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Spring Lake Imp. Dist. v. Tyrrell

The case of Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue, 662 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1995), holds that there is no entitlement…

Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue

Therefore, section 55.03, Florida Statutes, does not apply in this case. We distinguish this case from…