DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, P.A., ZUCKERMAN & VENDITTI, P.A., AND DONALD S. ZUCKERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A.; ALEX HOFRICHTER, P.A., AND ALEX HOFRICHTER, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Zuckerman appeals a final judgment in a law partnership dissolution case involving an accounting phase conducted by court-appointed special masters. The appellate court affirms the judgment, finding no reversible error despite Zuckerman's challenges to the special masters' qualifications and the accounting procedures used.
The court affirmed the final judgment on all grounds. The special master's lack of Florida CPA licensure did not fatally taint the proceedings given his Washington CPA license and sixteen years of experience; any mischaracterization of his credentials was de minimis error. The trial court properly followed agreed-upon procedures, properly credited Zuckerman, properly pierced the corporate veil to impose individual liability, and properly awarded prejudgment interest.
[1] A special master's qualification to perform accounting work is not fatally tainted by a lack of a Florida CPA license if the master holds a CPA license in another state a…
[2] A de minimis misstatement by a special master regarding their CPA licensure, if any, does not warrant vacating a final judgment when the master is otherwise qualified and…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The special master held a CPA license in Washington, had sixteen years of experience in public accounting, and was fully qualified to do the complicated accounting work done below at the trial court's request.”
Establishes that despite lacking a Florida CPA license, the special master's credentials and experience were sufficient to qualify him to perform the accounting work.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZuckerman, a law partnership dissolved, and the trial court appointed two special masters to handle the accounting phase. One special master was licen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Expert Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal by Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., Zuckerman and Venditti, P.A., and Donald S. Zuckerman, individually, [collectively Zuckerman] from an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial, in which two court-appointed special masters filed reports with the court in the accounting phase of an action for dissolution of a law partnership. We have carefully reviewed Zuckerman’s points on appeal, but find no reversible error presented and affirm.
First, we conclude that the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying Zuekerman’s post-judgment motion to vacate the final judgment. The fact that one of the special masters in the case did not hold a CPA license in Florida and testified below that he was a CPA did not, as urged, fatally taint the proceedings below. The special master held a CPA license in Washington, had sixteen years of experience in public accounting, and was fully qualified to do the complicated accounting work done below at the trial court’s request. Although arguably he may have misspoke below by characterizing himself as a CPA because he was not licensed in this state, see § 473.322, Fla.Stat. (1991). But cf. Martuccio v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Optometry, 622 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (expert need not be licensed in state); Lee County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Lowe, 344 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (same); this error, if any, is de minimus in nature under the circumstances of this case and affords no basis whatever to vacate the final judgment under review.
Second, the balance of Zuckerman’s points are equally unpersuasive and require little discussion. The procedures followed by the special masters in this case in auditing the partnership accounts were agreed to below; Zuckerman was given credit for all sums to which he was entitled; Donald Zuckerman was properly held individually liable because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of his P.A.; and prejudgment interest was properly awarded. See § 620.645(3), (4), Fla.Stat. (1991); Poller v. First Va. Mortgage & Real Estate Inv. Trust, 471 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1985); Fenick v. Robertson, 406 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Obel v. Henshaw, 130 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alex Hofrichter, P.A. v. Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A., 710 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…n, the trial court bifurcated the proceedings so that the parties’ accounting claims would be tried first. Those proceedings were concluded and resulted in a judgment in favor of Hofrichter. See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In the second phase of the ease, Zucker-man argued that Hofrichter’s substantive claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Zucker…1 / 2
-
Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…we have already determined that Zuckerman was properly held individually liable together with Zueker-man, P.A. because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of Zuckerman “P.A.” See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) followed by Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., 632 So. 2d at 731. In sum, it is now the law of the case that both Zuckerman, personally, and Zuckerman, P.A. are responsible for the fee award. It is time for this case to come to an e…
-
Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 632 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…wed in this court. Another panel of this court concluded, in part, “Donald Zuckerman was properly held individually liable because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of his P.A.” Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, the October 1, 1992 order is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. Appeal No. 92-1519 affirmed; Appeal No. 92-2368 reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lou Poller v. First Va. Mortg. & Real Est. Inv. Tr., 471 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Fenick v. Robertson, 406 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Obel v. Henshaw, 130 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- LEE Cnty. Elec. Co-Operative, Inc. v. Lowe, 344 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Martuccio v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 622 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)