Trapp v. Hancuh

27 Citing cases

  1. Hogenson v. Hogenson

    852 N.W.2d 266 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that preverdict interest is calculated under section 334.01 when “damages are ascertainable or liquidated”

    In 1984 the Minnesota Legislature amended section 549.09, extending the availability of preverdict interest to most claims. Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.App.1998). The pertinent subdivision reads in part:

  2. Nutripro Feeds v. Stages Pork, LLC

    A17-0396 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2017)

    In Minnesota, both statute and common law govern prejudgment-interest awards. Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2016); Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn. App. 1998); see also Hogenson v. Hogenson, 852 N.W.2d 266, 272 (Minn. App. 2014). At common law, when the damages are ascertainable, interest begins to accrue at the rate prescribed by Minnesota Statutes section 334.01 from the date a claim arose.

  3. Springwall, Inc. v. Timeless Bedding, Inc.

    1:00CV1008 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2003)

    Minnesota allows prejudgment interest in more than one way. Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.App. 1998) ("In Minnesota, both statute and common law govern the award of prejudgment interest."). First, a Minnesota statute allows "preverdict" interest "from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim [provided the action is commenced within two years of a written notice of claim for interest], whichever occurs first. . . ." Minn. Stat. Ann., § 549.09(1)(b).

  4. Blehr v. Anderson

    955 N.W.2d 613 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that because the amount of respondent's medical-expense damages were dependent on jury discretion, they were not readily ascertainable

    Id. Examples of unascertainable damages include the valuation of a partnership interest, Trapp v. Hancuh , 587 N.W.2d 61, 64 (Minn. App. 1998), the amount of damages for a trespass, Hogenson , 852 N.W.2d at 274, and personal injury or injury to reputation, Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc. , 291 Minn. 513, 189 N.W.2d 499, 504 (1971). Whether damages are ascertainable is a question of fact to be resolved by the fact-finder.

  5. Lu v. Sabri

    No. A23-0455 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2024)

    Damages are readily ascertainable "when the amount demanded can be ascertained by computation or reference to generally recognized standards and does not depend on a contingency." Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 64 (Minn.App. 1998). Damages are not readily ascertainable when the amount depends on "contingencies or jury discretion."

  6. Soderbeck v. Cen. for Diagnostic Imaging

    793 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 11 times

    See Booth v. Gades, 788 N.W.2d 701, 705 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing de novo construction of settlement agreement); Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 291 Minn. 513, 518-19, 189 N.W.2d 499, 504 (1971) (reviewing de novo award of interest as damages); Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.App. 1998) (reviewing de novo construction of Minn. Stat. § 549.09). But we review for clear error the finding that the amount on which interest is to be paid is due or ascertainable.

  7. Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc.

    681 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that animal feeds are "goods" for U.C.C. purposes

    V. The availability of prejudgment interest is a legal issue that we review de novo. Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.App. 1998). Prejudgment interest is governed by Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2002), which provides in relevant part:

  8. Lester Building Sys. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

    No. A03-48 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Both statute and common law govern the award of pre-judgment interest. Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2002); Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn. App. 1998). The construction of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Trapp, 587 N.W.2d at 63.

  9. Peterson v. BASF Corp.

    657 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    On appeal, questions of law governing prejudgment interest are reviewed de novo. Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn.App. 1998). Fact determinations underlying the application of the statute, such as whether the claim is liquidated, readily ascertainable, or unliquidated, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.

  10. Herll v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

    Case No. 15-3104 (MJD/FLN) (D. Minn. Oct. 2, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    In order for a written notice of claim to be considered a triggering event for accrual purposes under Minn. Stat. § 549.09, it must sufficiently advise of the nature of the damages and it must demand prompt payment. See General Mills Operations v. Five Star Custom Foods, 845 F.Supp.2d 975, 978 (D. Minn. 2012) (based on dictionary definition of "claim" the term "written notice of claim" in Minn. Stat. § 549.09 refers to "a demand for payment (or other similar assertion) contained in a writing."); Flint Hills Res. LP v. Lovegreen Turbine Servs., Inc., Civ. No. 04-4699, 2008 WL 4527816, at *9 (D. Minn. Sept. 20, 2008) (finding Minnesota courts have frequently described the required notice under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 as a demand for payment, as such interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the prejudgment statute - to give potential judgment debtors a greater incentive to settle or expedite cases); Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) ("Under the statute, prejudgment interest does not begin to run until an action is brought or when a written demand is made, whichever is first.") Plaintiffs assert that interest accrues from the date of the first written notice of a claim through the date of the clarified appraisal award.