Case ID: so2d_537/html/1055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TOWN OF PALM BEACH, a municipal corporation; City of Atlantis, a municipal corporation; City of Boynton Beach, a municipal corporation; City of Delray Beach, a municipal corporation; Town of Gulf Stream, a municipal corporation; Town of Highland Beach, a municipal corporation; Town of Juno Beach, a municipal corporation; Town of Jupiter, a municipal corporation; City of Lake Worth, a municipal corporation; Town of Lantana, a municipal corporation; Village of North Palm Beach, a municipal corporation; Town of Ocean Ridge, a municipal corporation; City of Palm Beach Gardens, a municipal corporation; City of Riviera Beach, a municipal corporation; Town of South Palm Beach, a municipal corporation; Village of Tequesta, a municipal corporation; and City of West Palm Beach, a municipal corporation, Appellants, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellee.
    No. 87-2752.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 18, 1989.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1989.
    John A. DeVault, III, of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault & Pillans, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.
    Mike Buckner, Steel, Hector, Davis, Burns & Middleton, West Palm Beach, for Town of South Palm Beach.
    Carl V.M. Coffin, West Palm Beach, for City of West Palm Beach.
    Van B. Cook, Palm Beach County Atty. West Palm Beach, Robert L. Nabors, Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Nabors, Giblin, Steffens & Nickerson, P., Tallahassee, Gary M. Brandenburg, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Palm Beach County.
    Raymond A. Rea, City Atty., Boynton Beach, for City of Boynton Beach.
    Herbert W.A. Thiele, Delray Beach, for City of Delray Beach.
    Thomas A. Sliney, Dilworth, Paxon, Kalish, Kauffman & Tylande, Boca Raton, for Town of Highland Beach.
    Alan E. Fallik, Lake Worth, for City of Lake Worth.
    Trela J. White, West Palm Beach, for Town of Lantana.
    Preston Mighdoll, Kohl & Mighdoll, West Palm Beach, for Town of Juno Beach.
    Jerome F. Skrandel, North Palm Beach, for Town of Jupiter.
    Herbert L. Gildan, Nason, Gildan & Yeager, West Palm Beach, for Village of North Palm Beach.
    William E. Brant, Brant & Baldwin, Lake Park, for City of Palm Beach Gardens.
    Allen V. Everard, Riviera Beach, for City of Riviera Beach.
    John C. Randolph, Johnston, Sasser, Randolph & Weaver,- West Palm Beach, for Town of Palm Beach, Town of Gulf Stream, Town of Ocean Ridge and Village of Tequesta.
    Donald J. Sasser, Johnston, Sasser, Randolph & Weaver, West Palm Beach, for City of Atlantis.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying post-judgment interest to seventeen municipalities on a judgment entered in their favor.

In Palm Beach County v. Town of Palm Beach, 507 So.2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) this court reversed in part, remanded to the trial court, and ordered the return of certain ad valorem taxes to the municipalities. On remand the parties were unable to agree on whether the cities were also entitled to post-judgment interest on the judgment. The trial court determined that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the county was not obligated to pay interest on the award. The municipalities appeal. We reverse and hold that the municipalities are entitled to post judgment interest.

Section 55.03(1), Florida Statutes (1985) provides:

A judgment or decree entered on or after October 1,1981, shall bear interest at the rate of 12 percent a year unless the judgment or decree is rendered on a written contract or obligation providing for interest at a lesser rate, in which case the judgment or decree bears interest at the rate specified in such written contract or obligation.

Additionally case law seems to indicate that an award of post-judgment interest would be proper in the present circumstances. See Department of Transportation v. Tsalickis, 372 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Broward County v. Finlayson, 533 So.2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Nevertheless, because of the great public importance of the issues involved we certify the following question to the Supreme Court:

IS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IMMUNE FROM THE PAYMENT OF POST JUDGMENT INTEREST UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY?

REVERSED and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.