66 A.3d 840
R.I.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Gregory and Christina Andrews deposited $49,000 with defendant Beverly Plouff's agent to secure a real estate purchase in June 2008.
- Plouff altered the contract terms by handwritten changes that capped certain obligations and imposed additional conditions on the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs filed suit December 1, 2008, claiming the alterations constituted a counter-offer and that no valid contract was formed.
- A jury found there was no binding contract and that plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their $49,000 deposit on January 31, 2011.
- The trial court added 12% prejudgment interest to the $49,000, increasing the judgment to $64,239.67.
- Defendant moved under Rule 59(e) to remove prejudgment interest; the court denied the motion, and defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest applies to a deposit recovery | Andrews contends interest applies if pecuniary damages exist | Plouff argues deposit recovery is reimbursement, not pecuniary damages | Prejudgment interest not awarded |
| Does § 9-21-10(a) apply to jury verdicts on deposits | Statute covers verdicts or pecuniary decisions | Only pecuniary damages triggers prejudgment interest | Statutory interest applies to verdicts only when damages are pecuniary; not here |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogosian v. Bederman, 823 A.2d 1117 (R.I. 2003) (return of a deposit is reimbursement, not pecuniary damages)
- Rhode Island Insurer’s Insolvency Fund v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., 763 A.2d 590 (R.I. 2000) (deposit reimbursements not entitled to statutory interest)
- In re Estate of Cantore, 814 A.2d 331 (R.I. 2003) (reimbursement actions not equivalent to pecuniary damages)
- Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68 (R.I. 2011) (statutes should not yield meaningless or absurd results)