HART v. WARNER
2017 OK CIV APP 29
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Erin Hart was injured in a March 2011 automobile accident and filed suit October 31, 2011 against the driver and employer.
- A jury returned a verdict for Hart on June 18, 2014 for $960,000; judgment was entered July 8, 2014.
- Hart moved for prejudgment interest based on the law in effect when she filed suit (pre-November 1, 2013) and initially sought over $100,000.
- The district court granted prejudgment interest but applied 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 727.1 (effective Nov. 1, 2013), awarding $366.67 under the Treasury Bill rate and excluding the first 24 months from accrual.
- Hart appealed, arguing the 2013 statute was unconstitutionally applied to a case filed before its enactment (special-law and ex post facto arguments).
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed whether § 727.1 is procedural (a mode of procedure) and therefore properly applied to verdicts accepted after its effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 § 727.1 may be applied to a suit filed before its enactment | Hart: applying 2013 § 727.1 deprived her of the prejudgment interest rate in effect when suit was filed; unconstitutional retroactive/special law | Defs: § 727.1 is procedural—governs mode of awarding interest and applies to verdicts accepted after effective date | Held: § 727.1 is procedural; applying it to verdicts accepted after its effective date is constitutional |
| Whether applying § 727.1 violates Article 5 § 46 (special/local law) | Hart: Douglas decision and amendments created disparate classes and non-uniform enforcement of judgments; discriminatory | Defs: Legislature’s changes apply uniformly to all verdicts accepted within each period; no impermissible classification | Held: No violation—statute applies equally to all within its temporal class and is not an unconstitutional special law |
| Whether applying § 727.1 violates Article 2 § 15 (ex post facto / vested rights) | Hart: she had a vested right to the prejudgment interest rate in effect at filing; later change is retroactive punishment | Defs: Prejudgment interest is procedural/remedial, not substantive; Legislature may change rate applicable at verdict | Held: Prejudgment interest statute is procedural; changes do not divest substantive vested rights and may apply retroactively to pending suits |
| Proper temporal measurement for prejudgment interest | Hart: measure should use pre-2013 law (higher award) | Defs: Measure under 2013 § 727.1 | Held: District court correctly applied 2013 § 727.1 and awarded $366.67 |
Key Cases Cited
- Benson v. Blair, 515 P.2d 1363 (Okla. 1973) (prejudgment interest statute is procedural; applies to verdicts accepted after enactment)
- Fields v. Volkswagen of Am., 555 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1976) (confirms Benson’s retroactive/procedural application)
- Fleming v. Baptist Gen. Convention of Okla., 742 P.2d 1087 (Okla. 1987) (statute directs assessment of prejudgment interest at rate in effect when verdict is accepted)
- Douglas v. Cox Retirement Props., Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (Okla. 2013) (Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, including earlier § 727.1 amendments, declared unconstitutional)
- Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 713 P.2d 589 (Okla. 1985) (once judgment is rendered, postjudgment interest rate at time of judgment applies despite later legislative change)
- Sisney v. Smalley, 690 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1984) (judgments do not bear interest at common law; interest recovery is statutory)
- Spitznas v. State, 648 P.2d 1271 (Okla. Crim. 1982) (definition and scope of ex post facto prohibition)