Case Name: SHARFF, WITTMER & KURTZ, P.A. and James D. Grainger, Appellants, v. Joseph M. MESSANA and Ruth B. Messana, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-05-07
Citations: 581 So. 2d 906
Docket Number: No. 90-1256
Parties: SHARFF, WITTMER & KURTZ, P.A. and James D. Grainger, Appellants, v. Joseph M. MESSANA and Ruth B. Messana, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and GERSTEN , JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 581
Pages: 906–909

Head Matter:
SHARFF, WITTMER & KURTZ, P.A. and James D. Grainger, Appellants, v. Joseph M. MESSANA and Ruth B. Messana, Appellees.
No. 90-1256.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 7, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1991.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller and Donna Waters Romero, Boca Raton, for appellants.
Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schus-ter & Russell, and James R. George and Glenn E. Goldstein, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and GERSTEN , JJ.
Judge Gersten did not hear oral argument, but participated in the decision.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. and James D. Grainger from a final order denying their motion to set aside a settlement agreement in an accountant's malpractice action. We reverse upon a holding that where, as here, (a) an accountant enters into a settlement agreement in a malpractice action brought against him by his former clients for allegedly negligent preparation of the clients' income tax return, and (b) the Internal Revenue Service subsequently refunds to the former clients the full sum which was lost due to the accountant's alleged negligence, the subject settlement agreement may be vacated upon motion of the accountant on the ground of unjust enrichment.
Plainly, under the above circumstances, the former clients have received a recovery from the accountant for damages which the said clients have subsequently been reimbursed for; this being so, the clients should not in good conscience be allowed to keep this windfall recovery. Indeed, unjust enrichment as an action "exists to prevent the wrongful retention of a benefit . in violation of good conscience and fundamental principles of justice or equity," Challenge Air Transp., Inc. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, S.A., 520 So.2d 323, 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and has been employed to prevent similar-type windfall recoveries. For example, in Circle Finance Co. v. Peacock, 399 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 380 (Fla.1981), the doctrine was used to prevent a finance company from retaining both a deed transferring the mortgagors' interest in their home and the proceeds of a credit disability policy. As the court stated "the doctrine recognizes that one party should not be indemnified twice for the same loss to the detriment of another party." Id. at 84. Moreover, in Sharp v. Bowling, 511 So.2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the court relied, in part, on unjust enrichment to force an employee to reimburse her employer for moneys the employer had to pay the IRS as a result of an error in reporting the amount of federal income taxes withheld from the employee's wages. Although the mistake had been a unilateral one made by the employer, the court concluded that the employee, who had received a tax refund from the IRS as a result of the mistake, had been unjustly enriched and "[i]n equity and good conscience . should be required to reimburse her employers." Id. at 365.
We recognize that settlement agreements are highly favored under the law, Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985), and ordinarily will not be set aside when, due to subsequent events, one party to the agreement stands to reap a handsome profit. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Cohen, 454 So.2d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 464 So.2d 554 (Fla.1985). Where, however, a person settles a lawsuit and receives a recovery thereunder — and later is fully reimbursed for the alleged loss suffered, as here, said person has obviously received a windfall recovery which in good conscience he should not be allowed to retain.
The final order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the defendants' motion to set aside the settlement agreement herein.
Reversed and remanded.
HUBBART and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.