Lake v. McCollum
324 S.W.3d 481
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Lake and Julia Lake sued Dr. Sharon Prohaska for medical malpractice and loss of consortium in 2001; jury awarded Lake $125,000 in 2005; circuit court entered a judgment on Sept. 12, 2005 that deferred ruling on directed verdict motions; on Jan. 6, 2006 the court granted JNOV for Prohaska and entered judgment for Prohaska; on appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed on the JNOV issue and remanded to enter judgment for Lake per the jury verdict; the circuit court subsequently entered judgment for the principal amount, with post-judgment interest to be determined; Lake argued post-judgment interest ran from Jan. 6, 2006 (date of the JNOV judgment) while Prohaska argued no post-judgment interest accrues until a judgment for the plaintiff is entered under the mandate; the circuit court ultimately awarded post-judgment interest from Nov. 17, 2009, the date the mandate issued).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does post-judgment interest begin to accrue under §408.040? | Lake argues it runs from Jan. 6, 2006. | Prohaska argues no money was due until remand judgment. | No post-judgment interest since no money was due. |
| Was the Sept. 12, 2005 docket entry a final judgment triggering post-judgment interest? | Lake treats it as a judgment/order triggering interest. | Prohaska argues it was not a judgment, merely trial minutes. | Not a judgment; interest not triggered. |
| What is the effect of the Rule 78.04 amendments on accrual date for post-judgment interest? | Lake relies on earlier rules to claim earlier accrual. | Prohaska relies on amended rule delaying accrual. | Amendments place accrual at date of actual judgment; still no money due here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindquist v. Mid Am. Orthopaedic Surgery, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 593 (Mo. banc 2007) (post-judgment interest accrues from judgment date; pre/post amendments noted)
- Johnson v. BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (pre-amendment accrual rule; interest from judgment date)
- Kan. City Power & Light Co. v. Bibb & Assocs., 197 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (amendments to Rule 78.04 changed accrual from verdict to judgment date)
- Stacy v. Truman Med. Ctr., 836 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. banc 1992) (earlier rule tying interest to verdict date before amendments)
- Crystal Tire Co. v. Home Serv. Oil Co., 507 S.W.2d 383 (Mo. 1974) (discussion of post-judgment interest in pre-amendment context)
- Sebastian County Coal & Mining Co. v. Mayer, 274 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. 1925) (distinguishable; there was a money-owed judgment under discussion)