Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee
213 Cal. App. 4th 635
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This anti-SLAPP dispute centers on fees and costs after a long litigation; the core issue is when interest begins on postjudgment fee/cost awards.
- Lucky previously held that prejudgment costs accrue interest from judgment entry and that costs awarded on appeal may be separate judgments; the “law of the case” binds later proceedings.
- On remand, the trial court adopted a framework that postjudgment costs/fees incurred in the trial court accrue interest from judgment entry, while appellate-costs accrue from their own award dates.
- The trial court identified six judgments and allocated various costs/fees to them, calculating interest from different dates.
- The appellate court ultimately holds that postjudgment costs/fees incurred after judgment accrue interest from the date the award is entered, not from the original judgment date, and that appellate-fee awards are incorporated into the judgment for enforcement, but interest on postjudgment awards starts at entry of the award.
- The disposition affirms most orders and remands for a precise calculation of remaining principal and interest as of July 26, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When do postjudgment cost/fee awards accrue interest? | Lee: Lucky requires accrual from judgment entry for postjudgment awards. | Lucky: accrual should begin when the amount is fixed, not from the original judgment date. | Interest on postjudgment costs/fees accrues from the date the award is entered. |
| Is Lucky binding law of the case on prejudgment costs accrual? | Lee asks to depart from Lucky’s prejudgment-cost rule. | Lucky governs the accrual for prejudgment costs as law of the case. | Yes, Lucky remains law of the case for prejudgment cost accrual. |
| Are postjudgment enforcement costs treated as part of the judgment for interest purposes? | Lee contends they should accrue as part of the judgment. | Lucky treated such costs as postjudgment additions, with accrual from award date. | Postjudgment enforcement costs accrue interest from the date the award is entered. |
| Do appellate costs constitute a separate judgment for interest purposes? | Lee argues appellate costs are incorporated into the main judgment. | Lucky treated appellate costs as separate judgments. | Appellate costs on appeal are separate judgments; trial court awards of costs/fees incurred on appeal are incorporated into the main judgment for enforcement, with interest from entry date. |
| How should multiple cost/fee awards be allocated across judgments? | Lee seeks a unified accrual date across awards. | Lucky allows allocation to individual judgments. | The decision requires allocating sums to the appropriate judgments and applying the date-of-entry rule to each award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee, 185 Cal.App.4th 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (establishes law of the case on accrual of prejudgment costs and separation of judgments for appellate costs)
- Bankes v. Lucas, 9 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (prejudgment costs entered nunc pro tunc to date of original judgment)
- Sternwest Corp. v. Ash, 183 Cal.App.3d 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (total judgment bears postjudgment interest; context for interest rules)
- Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo, 55 Cal.2d 439 (Cal. 1961) (reversal vs. modification on remand affects interest timing)
- Snapp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 60 Cal.2d 816 (Cal. 1964) (illustrates effect of appellate remand on judgments and interest)