358 S.W.3d 528
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Good Hope hired SLAM to monitor its church fire alarm system beginning in 1993.
- A fire destroyed the church in 2000; in 2005 Good Hope demanded $500,000 for damages, complying with pre-amended §408.040.
- House Bill 393 (2005) amended §408.040, affecting pre-judgment interest calculations and procedures.
- Trial court entered judgment after a jury verdict of $1,000,000; settlement/enforcement disputes followed, including whether pre-judgment interest was included.
- Trial court awarded $360,000 pre-judgment interest; on remand, court found no enforceable settlement and awarded $1,000,000 to Good Hope; SLAM later tendered $1,000,000 in 2008.
- On appeal, court held amended §408.040 cannot be applied retroactively; trial court’s pre-2005 interest calculation applied; post-judgment interest modified to 5.25%.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of §408.040 amendments | Good Hope argues amendments apply retroactively to deny pre-judgment interest. | SLAM argues amendments apply to cases filed after Aug 28, 2005 and should bar interest. | Amendments cannot be applied retroactively; pre-2005 interest accrual governs. |
| Additional pre-judgment interest on unused portion | Good Hope seeks interest from 2008 partial payment date onward for remaining amount. | SLAM contends no interest accrues after payment date on the satisfied portion. | No pre-judgment interest accrues on amounts paid; only unpaid portion accrues pre-judgment interest. |
| Post-judgment interest rate | Post-judgment interest should accrue on the unrecovered amount at the statutory rate. | Judgment should reflect applicable post-judgment rate. | Post-judgment interest rate set at 5.25% per annum; this rate applied to remaining judgment amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A., 220 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2007) (retrospective laws question; vested rights analysis)
- Missouri Real Estate Com'n v. Rayford, 307 S.W.3d 686 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (retrospective-law concept for past transactions)
- White v. Tariq, 299 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (procedural laws applied retroactively; enforcing rights via procedure)
- Tariq, see White v. Tariq (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (health care affidavit requirement as procedural)
- Smart v. Missouri State Treasurer, 916 S.W.2d 367 (Mo.App. S.D.1996) (substantive vs procedural change; retroactivity analysis)
- Smith v. Shaw, 159 S.W.3d 830 (Mo.banc 2005) (detection of pre-judgment interest accrual after demand letter)
- Lindquist v. Mid-America Orthopaedic Surgery, Inc., 325 S.W.3d 461 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (credit for payments made to avoid double interest)
- Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo.banc 2010) (pre-judgment interest accrual and payment effects)
- Investors Title Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 18 S.W.3d 70 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (interest timing and appellate review related to judgments)
- Gaydos v. Imhoff, 245 S.W.3d 303 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (Rule 84.14 and post-judgment interest articulation)