From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

IBM Credit Corp. v. Mark Facey & Co.

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Mar 18, 1997
44 Conn. App. 490 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)

Summary

regarding postjudgment motions for determination of interest under General Statutes § 37-3a

Summary of this case from Bower v. D'Onfro

Opinion

(15183)

The plaintiff sought to recover for the defendant's alleged default on a certain lease agreement. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the defendant appealed to this court. Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment awarding the plaintiff a specific amount in damages and undetermined interest, costs and attorney's fees. Because the trial court did not determine the amount of prejudgment interest due to the plaintiff, no final judgment existed; accordingly, the defendant's appeal was dismissed.

Argued January 29, 1997

Officially released March 18, 1997

Action to recover damages for the alleged breach of an office equipment lease, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court, Karazin, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the defendant appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

John F. McKenna, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Goodman and Rebecca Lamont, for the appellant (defendant).

Wendy Dunne DiChristina, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas D. Goldberg, for the appellee (plaintiff).


The defendant appeals following the trial court's granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because the court was presented with evidence of material facts that raise genuine issues. We conclude that no final judgment exists, and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

The following facts and procedural history are necessary for the disposition of this appeal. In 1991, the plaintiff, IBM Credit Corporation, and the defendant, Mark Facey Company, entered into a lease agreement by which the plaintiff was to supply computer equipment to the defendant for a period of sixty months. On March 14, 1994, the plaintiff filed a one count complaint alleging that the defendant had defaulted on the agreement and seeking payment on an accelerated rental amount due February 1, 1993, and thereafter. The defendant filed its answer and, by way of special defenses, alleged unconscionability, breach of warranty, fraud, payment, satisfaction and cancellation. In its special defenses, the defendant claimed that International Business Machines Corporation and Informational Management Associates, Inc., were agents or partners of the plaintiff and that these agents or partners sold the defendant the computer equipment and software. The defendant alleged that the lease agreement was the financial component through which this had occurred, and that the plaintiff's agents or partners had represented and warranted that the equipment would fit the defendant's needs, but that the equipment had failed to meet those needs.

The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking over $190,000 in damages "together with interest, attorney's fees and costs of collection in an amount to be determined." On March 24, 1995, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed "an application for a prejudgment remedy" that the trial court granted on July 10, 1995, in the amount of $190,025.16. On September 5, 1995, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to open and modify. On September 13, 1995, the defendant appealed the trial court's granting of the summary judgment. On November 30, 1995, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for a hearing on the issue of attorney's fees and interest. On June 12, 1996, judgment was rendered "[w]hereupon it is adjudged that Plaintiff is entitled to recover in damages $190,025.16 together with interest, attorney's fees and costs from the defendant."

The parties agree that this postjudgment action by the trial court was not appealed and is not part of this appeal.

The record does not disclose that the trial court has determined the amount of prejudgment interest or attorney's fees to date.

The judgment file is dated June 12, 1996, and was filed June 14, 1996. For the purposes of final judgment analysis, it would not appear to be of consequence that attorney's fees and costs of collection have not been determined. In Paranteau v. DeVita, 208 Conn. 515, 523, 544 A.2d 634 (1988), our Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's determination of liability and damages was a final judgment, for purposes of appeal, even though a supplemental postjudgment claim for statutory attorney's fees had not been resolved. In Balf Co. v. Spera Construction Co., 222 Conn. 211, 214-15, 608 A.2d 682 (1992), our Supreme Court explained that an award of attorney's fees and costs was a means of defraying costs of litigation and was therefore ancillary to the main action.

As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the trial court's failure to determine the award of prejudgment interest precludes this from being an appealable final judgment. Because it is a jurisdictional defect, the lack of a final judgment implicates this court's authority to hear the appeal. Preston v. Phelps Dodge Copper Products Co., 35 Conn. App. 850, 854, 647 A.2d 364 (1994). "Once the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cross v. Hudon, 27 Conn. App. 729, 732, 609 A.2d 1021 (1992).

The record is clear that after this appeal was filed, the trial court granted the plaintiff's request to schedule a hearing as to pretrial interest. The plaintiff sought "[i]nterest on all delinquent payments commencing from the due date," pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a. Section 37-3a is "a substantive law that requires an analysis of the merits of the underlying claim. [It] allows the court, in its discretion, to award prejudgment interest for wrongful retention of money. . . . Interest awarded pursuant to the substantive rule § 37-3a constitutes an element of the damages awarded on debts owing." (Citations omitted.) Paine Webber Jackson Curtis, Inc. v. Winters, 22 Conn. App. 640, 651-52, 579 A.2d 545, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 820, 581 A.2d 1055 (1990).

General Statutes § 37-3a provides in pertinent part: "Except as provided in sections 37-3b, 37-3c and 52-192a, interest at the rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, may be recovered and allowed in civil actions . . . as damages for the detention of money after it becomes payable. . . ."

The granting of a motion for summary judgment establishing liability for the principal amount claimed, but reserving a ruling on a claim for prejudgment interest does not constitute an appealable final judgment. Balf Co. v. Spera Construction Co., 222 Conn. 211, 214-15, 608 A.2d 682 (1992). Such an adjudication of prejudgment interest is a discretionary award, and part of the plaintiff's claim to be made whole. Id. "[T]he conclusion that a postjudgment motion for discretionary prejudgment interest postpones the finality of a judgment on the merits `helps further the important goal of avoiding piecemeal appellate review of judgments.' [ Osterneck v. Ernst Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 177, 109 S.Ct. 987, 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989).]" Id., 215. We conclude that, because the trial court had not determined prejudgment interest when the defendant filed this appeal, we are without jurisdiction to hear it.


Summaries of

IBM Credit Corp. v. Mark Facey & Co.

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Mar 18, 1997
44 Conn. App. 490 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)

regarding postjudgment motions for determination of interest under General Statutes § 37-3a

Summary of this case from Bower v. D'Onfro

regarding postjudgment motions for determination of interest under General Statutes § 37-3a

Summary of this case from Fleet Bank of Connecticut v. Kucza
Case details for

IBM Credit Corp. v. Mark Facey & Co.

Case Details

Full title:IBM CREDIT CORPORATION v. MARK FACEY AND COMPANY, INC

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Mar 18, 1997

Citations

44 Conn. App. 490 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)
690 A.2d 410

Citing Cases

Schaeppi v. Partners

We also note, however, that the plaintiffs' argument regarding the lack of a final judgment is misplaced. The…

Payne v. TK Auto Wholesalers

General Statutes § 52-564 provides: "Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and…