B-62830 August 31, 1950

B-62830: Aug 31, 1950

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

Blakeney: Reference is made to your letters of July 28 and August 2. Brooks and against the Government in the amount of $4000 was rendered on November 8. Interest should have been computed from the date of such judgment to the date of payment. While it is true that interest on such judgments usually is paid from the date of the judgment. Was vacated and the case remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 4. It is clear that. That portion of the settlement which allowed interest from the date of such final judgment is correct. Interest properly should have been computed up to the date of payment. A supplemental settlement providing for such additional interest will be issued in due course.

B-62830 August 31, 1950

Mr. W.S. Blakeney, Attorney at Law 1104 Johnston Building Charlotte, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Blakeney:

Reference is made to your letters of July 28 and August 2, 1950, questioning the amount allowed you and your client Welker B. Brooks as interest by settlement No. 1860920 dated July 19, 1950. You state that judgment in behalf of Mr. Brooks and against the Government in the amount of $4000 was rendered on November 8, 1947, and interest should have been computed from the date of such judgment to the date of payment, rather than from September 12, 1949, to June 29, 1950, the date of approval of the Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1950.

While it is true that interest on such judgments usually is paid from the date of the judgment, the record discloses that the judgment of November 8, 1947, rendered by the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, was vacated and the case remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 4, 1949. United States v. Brooks, 176 F.2d 882. Subsequently, the District Court entered a final judgment in the case on September 12, 1949. Consequently, it is clear that, inasmuch as the judgment of November 8, 1947, had been vacated and since 28 U.S. Code 2411(b) requires that interest be paid only on final judgments, that portion of the settlement which allowed interest from the date of such final judgment is correct.

However, since the cited Code provision also requires that interest on such final judgments be allowed up to, but not exceeding, 30 days from the date of approval of the appropriation act providing for payment of the judgment, interest properly should have been computed up to the date of payment.

Accordingly, a supplemental settlement providing for such additional interest will be issued in due course.

Very Truly Yours,

E.L. FISHER Acting Comptroller General of the United States