Opinion
C.A. No. 97A-10-003
May 7, 2001
Plaintiff's Motion for Re-Argument
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the Plaintiffs Motion for re-argument on the February 16th, 2001 decision of the Court in the above-captioned case, and the response by the State.
In the February 16th decision, the Court awarded $9,040.96 to Ms. McCormick. This amount was calculated as follows:
(1) Annual State Salary for the 1997-1998 school year: $71,439.73
(2) Less Salary Previously Paid To Her by the State Through the Date of the Board's Decision on September 18, 1997: $14,833.77
(3) Less Earnings from the Seaford School District For the 1997-1998 School Year: $47,565.00
(4) Net awarded to Ms. McCormick: $9040.96
Plaintiff has filed for re-argument of the Court's February 16th decision. The only basis cited for re-argument is that Plaintiff seeks an assessment of interest on her award of $9,040.96 at the legal interest rate in accordance with 6 Del. C. § 2301.
In response, Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff did not timely file for re-argument of Judge Teny's decision and should be barred from requesting additional damages; (2) inequity would result if interest was now added to the original offer of damages made by the defendant in 1998 "which the defendant acknowledged to be due and which the plaintiff spurned"; and (3) inequity would result if the Court orders interest "where the delay in resolution of the case is largely attributable to the plaintiffs refusal to accept damages ordered by Judge Terry."
Despite Defendant's contention that it would "clearly be inequitable to order the payment of interest", the Court elects to do so on the $9,040.96 awarded in the Court's February 16th decision. It was omitted by oversight. Interest at the legal rate goes hand-inhand with a damage award of this kind. Defendant's argument that Plaintiff should not be granted interest because she "spurned" Defendant's initial offer and sought clarification of Judge Terry's initial award is without merit. Parties routinely hold out for a better deal. Defendant's claims of inequity are misplaced. Further, the State has held Ms. McCormick's salary differential for the 1997-1998 school year in its purse for some time now, and has enjoyed all of the benefits of that capital and its ensuing interest.
The Court rules that Ms. McCormick is granted interest on her previous damage award of $9,040.96. The interest is to be calculated at the current legal rate.
Further re-argument is denied.