Opinion
No. CV94-0360659 S
July 6, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 30, 1998, the court (DeMayo, J.) entered judgment for the plaintiff (Urich) for the sum of $20,000 and for the defendant Fish on the counterclaim of $20,005.72. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the defendant filed a cross appeal. The Appellate Court on June 13, 2000, reversed in part and ordered a new trial, Urich v. Fish, 58 Conn.App. 176. Judge Blue on November 27, 2000 in his Memorandum of Decision dated November 27, 2000 wrote in his Memorandum Pleading #125 that the decision of the Appellate Court in 58 Conn.App. 176 limited the scope of his decision to the Second and Third Counts of the Counterclaim [28 Conn. L. Rptr. 615]. The Second Count claimed items that should have been included in the sale of the yacht and the Third Count of Unfair Trade Practices in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b. Judge Blue's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by Urich, that reversed August 27, 2002 as to the Second and Third Counts of Judge Blue's decision, Urich v. Fish, 261 Conn. 575.
The court (Meadow, J.T.R.) then tried the Second and Third Counts, rendered its decision November 9, 2004 awarding damages in the amount of $12,427.41, prejudgment interest pursuant to § 37-3a in the amount of $14,395, punitive damages in the amount of $20,000 and attorneys fees in the amount of $25,000. Urich again appealed and on October 3, 2006 the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Urich v. Fish 97 Conn.App. 797. The plaintiff, Urich, argued before the Appellate Court that the court (Meadow, J.) improperly awarded the defendant, Fish, prejudgment interest pursuant to § 37-3a because his judgment of $20,000 on the complaint was greater than the defendant's judgment damages on the counterclaim. The Appellate Court, 97 Conn.App. 797, 801, 802, 803 held:
"In the first trial of this matter, the court did not award either party prejudgment interest. With respect to the plaintiff, after rendering judgment in his favor on the complaint in the amount of $20,000, the court stated: `in view of the fact that his sum has been the subject of attack via the counterclaim, the $20,000 or any part of it does not become `payable' until the court acts on the defendant's claims. Consequently, no interest will be allowed on any net award in favor of the plaintiff on the complaint.'" In his appeal from the judgment in favor of the defendant on the counterclaim, the plaintiff did not raise the issue of the court's denial of his request for prejudgment interest. That part of the court's judgment remained undisturbed, and there has been a conclusive determination that the plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount awarded on his complaint.
Only the second and third counts of the defendant's counterclaim were retried in the second trial of this matter. The court awarded the defendant damages for the missing items from the yacht, punitive damages and attorneys fees. In addition, in its discretion, the court awarded the defendant prejudgment interest pursuant to § 37-3a. The plaintiff appealed, and that judgment was reversed. Urich v. Fish, supra, 261 Conn. 575. When the case was tried for the third time, resulting in the judgment that is the subject of this appeal, the court awarded the defendant damages for the missing items, punitive damages, attorneys fees and prejudgment interest pursuant to § 37-3a. The plaintiff has not claimed that the court abused its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest, nor has he challenged the actual amount of the award. Rather, he claims that no such interest can be awarded because the amount of his judgment on the complaint exceeds the amount of the defendant's judgment on the counterclaim.
The plaintiff cites no case law, statute or rule of practice that supports his position. Here, prejudgment interest was awarded on the defendant's counterclaim. A counterclaim is an independent action. Practice Book §§ 10-10, 10-54, 10-55; Cecil Bros., Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corp., 81 Conn.App. 419, 428, 840 A.2d 578, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 922, 846 A.2d 881 (2004). In its discretion, the court declined to award the plaintiff prejudgment interest on his claims but granted the defendant's request to award prejudgment interest on his claims. The court properly refused to set off the defendant's award against the plaintiff's award. To set off one claim against the other before calculating interest would, in effect, award § 37-3a interest to the plaintiff when the plaintiff had not been awarded such interest and was not entitled to such interest. See id., 429. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim must fail.
On March 14, 2007 the plaintiff's Petition for Certification was denied.
The plaintiff, Urich, now argues that the postjudgment interest due to him on the judgment in his favor of $20,000 which was never appealed should be set off against the postjudgment interest being sought by the defendant on his counterclaim.
The plaintiff, Urich, was denied prejudgment interest and allowing a set off now would award the seller prejudgment interest which he was not awarded. At no time since the original suit in 1998 was any money due to the plaintiff because of the dispute that the defendant was entitled to his counterclaim.
The claim by Urich that he is now entitled to postjudgment interest from 1998 because it is automatic is without merit.
The award of interest is discretionary under C.G.S. § 37-3a and was never awarded in this case to the plaintiff
The defendant argues that he is entitled to postjudgment interest on the amount of his judgment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a from the date of judgment on November 9, 2004.
The court rejects the argument of the plaintiff in this case with respect to his claim now for postjudgment interest.
The defendant argues that the real question in each case is whether the detention of money is or is not wrongful under the circumstances and lies within the discretion of the court.
The allowance of interest is an equitable matter lying within the discretion of the court. See Bertozzi v. McCarthy, 164 Conn. 463, 466-67, 323 A.2d 553 (1973).
The amount of the judgment on counts two and three was $71,822 on November 9, 2004.
The court grants the motion for postjudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per year to June 23, 2007 in the amount of $18,947.52 in favor of the defendant. The court rejects the postjudgment interest claim by the plaintiff.