Like attorney’s fees, court costs make a claimant whole, as does pre-judgment interest. In determining whether attorney’s fees for the prosecution or defense of a claim qualify as compensatory damages, the court noted: Not every amount, even if compensatory, can be considered damages. The Texas Supreme Court has addressed whether pre-judgment interest qualifies as compensatory damages in dicta in In re Nalle Plastics Family Limited Partnership, 406 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. In a suit on sworn account, “actual damages” is the unpaid amount for delivered goods or services performed. The phrase is “interchangeable with ‘actual damages’” which means “n amount awarded to a complainant to compensate for a proven injury or loss damages that repay actual losses.” Id. Neither the rule nor the statute defines “compensatory damages.” However, Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “damages sufficient in amount to indemnify the injured person for the loss suffered.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 445 (9th ed.
–2– amount equal to the sum of (1) compensatory damages and costs awarded in the judgment and (2) interest on the compensatory damages awarded for the estimated duration of the appeal. Top Cat did not dispute either the accrued or the daily accrual amounts owed in its response to Alliance’s summary judgment motion.
#Topcat ready mix code
APPLICABLE LAW Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 52.006(a) and appellate rule 24.2(a)(1) provide that a judgment debtor may supersede execution of a money judgment by filing security in an 2 This amount represents the $194,233.32 accrued as of the date Alliance filed for summary judgment plus $155.39 per day for twenty-nine days, the period between the filing of the summary judgment motion and the date of judgment.
#Topcat ready mix trial
Alliance filed the motion at issue when the trial court denied the relief requested. Urging the supersedeas amount should be increased to include the “contractual pre-judgment interest” awarded, Alliance moved to reconsider. Under the terms of each invoice Alliance sent Top Cat, interest “accrue at the rate of 1.5% per month starting 60 days from INVOICE DATE.” At the time Alliance filed for summary judgment, late-payment interest totaled $194,233.32 and continued to accrue at “$155.39 per day.” Based on the summary judgment evidence presented, the trial court awarded Alliance $315,087.21 in “actual damages ” $198,739.63 in “contractual pre-judgment interest ”2 $70,000 in attorney’s fees post-judgment interest on actual damages at an annual “contractual rate of 18% ” and, post-judgment interest on all other damages at “the rate of 5% per annum.” Top Cat subsequently superseded the judgment pending its appeal by posting a cash deposit in the amount of $371,802.90, the apparent sum of the “actual damages” awarded and interest for the estimated duration of the appeal. Alliance made “dozens of deliveries” but was not paid in full. As reflected in the record, Top Cat contracted with Alliance to “source and deliver” materials needed to make concrete. BACKGROUND The underlying appeal follows a summary judgment in favor of Alliance on its sworn account claim. We agree and increase the amount of security accordingly. “compensatory damages.” Alliance Trucking, L.P. In their filings with this Court, the parties also, at times, use that term. The trial court characterized the late-payment interest awarded as “contractual pre-judgment interest”1 and, in setting the amount of security Top Cat Ready Mix, LLC had to post to suspend the judgment against it, did not include it as 1 The record reflects the parties used the term “pre-judgment interest” themselves at times when referencing the late-payment interest. DC-15-07419 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION TO REVIEW TRIAL COURT’S ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF SUPERSEDEAS SECURITY Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Justice Evans At issue in this motion to review supersedeas security is whether “contractual interest” on late payments is “compensatory damages” for purposes of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 52.006 and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(1), which govern the suspension of enforcement of money judgments pending appeal. AND TXI OPERATIONS, LP D/B/A MARTIN MARIETTA, Appellees On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 05-18-00175-CV TOP CAT READY MIX, LLC, Appellant V.
GRANT and Opinion Filed DecemS In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No.
0 kommentar(er)
