CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Pineiro and Daniel Lawrence
Rashbaum, for appellees.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
HENDON, J.
The respondents below, Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Kendall
Regional Medical Center, et al. (collectively, “Kendall Regional”), appeal from a
final judgment entered under section 620.2122, Florida Statutes, of the Florida
Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (“the Act”), awarding each petitioner,
Dr....
...The physicians declined the offers and demanded a greater amount as the estimated
fair value for each LP interest. After the physicians’ demands were rejected, they
filed a petition for appraisal against Kendall Regional to determine the “fair value”
of their LP interests under section 620.2122 of the Act.
2
At the non-jury trial on the physicians’ petition for appraisal, both sides
presented expert testimony as to the fair value of each LP interest....
...We agree.
The physicians have acknowledged that the general rule in Florida is that
interest should not be permitted on a sum that is interest itself—“interest on
interest”—but argue that the general rule is not applicable. In making this
argument, the physicians rely on (1) section 620.2122(1), which requires the trial
court to “determine the fair value of the partnership interests and accrued
interest” (emphasis added); (2) section 620.2122(5), which provides that “[e]ach
partner made a party to the proceeding is entitled to judgment for the amount of the
fair value of such limited partner’s limited partner partnership interests, plus
interest, as found by the co...
...First, Computer Group was
decided under section 607.247(8), Florida Statute (1987), which “governs the
interest to be awarded dissenting shareholders in an appraisal proceeding.”
Computer Task,
810 So. 2d at 978. In contrast, in the instant case, prejudgment
interest was awarded pursuant to section
620.2122(1), (5) of the Act, which applies
7
to limited partnerships. Second, the language in section 607.247(8) differs
substantially from the language in sections
620.2122(1) and (5). Unlike the
language in sections
620.2122(1) and (5), the language in section 607.247(8)
indicates that the Legislature granted the trial court discretion in determining the
rate of interest based on what “the court may find to be fair and equitable in all the
circumstances.”
Finally, the trial court’s reliance on In re Sunbelt Beverage Corp.
Shareholder Litigation,
2010 WL 26539 (Del. Ch. 2010), was also misplaced.
Unlike section
620.2122, the applicable Delaware statute specifically provides that,
“[u]nless the Court in its discretion determines otherwise for good cause shown,
interest ....
