B-157605, SEP. 24, 1965

B-157605: Sep 24, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

YOU STATE THAT THE WIENER CASE AND THE KAUFMAN CASE (THE INSTANT CASE) ARE SIMILAR. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE WIENER CASE IS FOR $82. 430.56 WHEREAS IN THE KAUFMAN CASE THE JUDGMENT IS FOR $14. IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT SINCE THE WIENER AND KAUFMAN CASES ARE SIMILAR. INTEREST IS PAYABLE ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE KAUFMAN CASE ON THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 24. UNDER 31 U.S.C. 724/A) INTEREST OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY LAW IS PAYABLE ON JUDGMENTS NOT IN EXCESS OF $100. 395 WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE KAUFMAN CASE ON NOVEMBER 16. THE MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE WAS ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE COURT TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON NOVEMBER 18. YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT WAS NOT FILED WITH THIS OFFICE AS OF THE LATTER DATE.

B-157605, SEP. 24, 1965

TO OLIVER, GOOD AND SLOAN:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 19, 1965, TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER, HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THIS OFFICE FOR REPLY.

YOU REFER TO OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 24, 1965, B-155898, TO MARGOLIS AND MCTERNAN CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE WIENER CASE. YOU STATE THAT THE WIENER CASE AND THE KAUFMAN CASE (THE INSTANT CASE) ARE SIMILAR, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE WIENER CASE IS FOR $82,430.56 WHEREAS IN THE KAUFMAN CASE THE JUDGMENT IS FOR $14,395. IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT SINCE THE WIENER AND KAUFMAN CASES ARE SIMILAR, INTEREST IS PAYABLE ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE KAUFMAN CASE ON THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 24, 1965.

UNDER 31 U.S.C. 724/A) INTEREST OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY LAW IS PAYABLE ON JUDGMENTS NOT IN EXCESS OF $100,000 ONLY IN CASES APPEALED BY THE UNITED STATES AND AFFIRMED ON APPEAL. ALSO, THE STATUTE IN QUESTION PERMITS PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN SUCH CASES ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGMENT WITH THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO THE DATE OF MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE BY THE APPELLATE COURT.

A JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,395 WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE KAUFMAN CASE ON NOVEMBER 16, 1962, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (216 F.SUPP. 701 (1962) ). THE UNITED STATES APPEALED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON JUNE 24, 1964 (335 F.2D 379). THE MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE WAS ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE COURT TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON NOVEMBER 18, 1964. HOWEVER, YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT WAS NOT FILED WITH THIS OFFICE AS OF THE LATTER DATE. THUS, PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENT INVOLVED HERE WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY THE ABOVE REFERRED-TO LIMITATION IN 31 U.S.C. 724/A).

CONCERNING THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE WIENER AND KAUFMAN CASES, IT IS TRUE THAT THE CASES ARE SIMILAR IN MOST RESPECTS, AND THAT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE WIENER CASE WAS NOT FILED IN THIS OFFICE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE BY THE APPELLATE COURT. HOWEVER, INSOFAR AS THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENTS IS CONCERNED THE WIENER AND KAUFMAN CASES ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE.

THERE IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 22, 1965, B-155898, 44 COMP. GEN. 421, TO THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE WIENER CASE. POINTED OUT THEREIN, ON THE DATE (NOVEMBER 16, 1962) THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN THE WIENER CASE THE PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. 724/A) WERE NOT FOR APPLICATION, SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS IN EXCESS OF $100,000. FURTHER, THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT REDUCED UNTIL DECEMBER 14, 1964, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE (NOVEMBER 18, 1964) THE MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE WAS ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE COURT. THUS, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OR REASON FOR FILING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORIGINAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT WITH THIS OFFICE AT THE TIME IT WAS RENDERED, SINCE IT EXCEEDED $100,000 AND, HENCE, WAS NOT PAYABLE UNDER 31 U.S.C. 724/A). MOREOVER, AT THE TIME THE JUDGMENT WAS REDUCED TO LESS THAN $100,000 THE MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF 31 U.S.C. 724/A).

THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT EXIST IN THE KAUFMAN CASE. THE JUDGMENT IN THE KAUFMAN CASE DID NOT EXCEED $100,000 AND, THEREFORE, WAS PAYABLE FROM THE TIME IT WAS FIRST ENTERED UNDER THE ABOVE-CITED CODE PROVISION. THUS, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT AND REASON FOR FILING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THIS OFFICE IN THE KAUFMAN CASE, IF THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS DESIRED ON SUCH JUDGMENT.

ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION IN THE WIENER CASE WOULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR ALLOWING INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE KAUFMAN CASE. THE STATEMENT CONTAINED IN OUR DECISIONS OF JANUARY 22 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1965, TO THE EFFECT THAT WE WOULD ALLOW INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENT "IN THE WIENER CASE (AND THE OTHER SIMILAR JUDGMENTS)," HAD REFERENCE TO OTHER CASES WHERE THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WAS IN EXCESS OF $100,000 AND AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE THE JUDGMENT WAS REDUCED TO $100,000 OR LESS.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING NO INTEREST WOULD BE ALLOWABLE ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE KAUFMAN CASE.