Richard Ringer v. Joseph F. John
742 S.E.2d 103
W. Va.2013Background
- Ringer appeals a Preston County circuit court order denying his motion to amend a judgment in a contract/unjust enrichment action.
- Trial in June 2011 yielded a mixed verdict: John won on the endloader claim; Ringer prevailed on his unjust enrichment counterclaim with damages totaling $42,100.
- The court awarded prejudgment interest to Ringer at 7% commencing August 2, 2010, the date of accrual per the court’s finding.
- Ringer argued prejudgment interest accrues from the date he first had a right to sue (July 19, 2007) and that the rate should be 9.75% for 2007.
- The circuit court denied Ringer’s motion to amend; the issues on appeal concern accrual date and the correct prejudgment interest rate.
- This Court held that the trial court erred by applying §56-6-31 and that the action is governed by §56-6-27, necessitating remand for recalculation of prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date for prejudgment interest | Ringer: accrual from date right to sue arose (July 19, 2007). | John: accrual date as determined by the trial court should stand. | Accrual date determined under §56-6-27; remand for recalculation |
| Proper statutory basis for prejudgment interest in contract actions | §56-6-27 governs prejudgment interest in contract actions. | §56-6-31 governs prejudgment interest generally. | §56-6-27 applies; §56-6-31 inapplicable here |
| Standard of review for questions of law in the appeal | De novo review for questions of law and statutory interpretation. | Standard of review for the underlying order applies. | De novo review applied |
| Characterization of the unjust enrichment counterclaim | Counterclaim qualifies as contract-based under law. | Counterclaim is not a contract action. | Unjust enrichment claim treated as contract action for prejudgment interest purposes |
| Remand for recalculation of prejudgment interest | Interest amount should be recomputed under §56-6-27. | No further recalculation required. | Remanded for recalculation consistent with §56-6-27 |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickland v. American Travellers Life Ins. Co., 204 W.Va. 430 (1998) (standard for reviewing motions to alter or amend a judgment)
- Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138 (1995) (de novo review for questions of law or statutory interpretation)
- Thompson v. Stuckey, 171 W.Va. 483 (1983) (contract action precedents for prejudgment interest under §56-6-27)
- Realmark Developments, Inc. v. Ranson, 214 W.Va. 161 (2003) (unjust enrichment treated as contract-based for interest purposes)
- CMC Enterprise, Inc. v. Ken Lowe Mgmt. Co., 206 W.Va. 414 (1999) (§56-6-27 as general authority for prejudgment interest in contract actions)
- City Nat’l Bank of Charleston v. Wells, 181 W.Va. 763 (1989) (§56-6-31 does not specifically apply to contract actions)