310 P.3d 1233
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Sundial Inc. purchased 34 remaining units and two building pads in The Villages at Wolf Hollow in 2004–2005.
- Aurora Development, LC was insolvent and unable to finish construction.
- Sundial paid $44,500 to the HOA, some for monthly assessments and some to keep the project viable.
- Dispute later arose over how Sundial’s overpayments should be treated in an unjust enrichment claim.
- Trial court found Sundial overpaid, awarded $5,403, and did not include prejudgment interest; Sundial appealed.
- On appeal, the sole issue is whether prejudgment interest was proper for an unjust enrichment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest was proper | Sundial argues interest should apply since damages could be calculated mathematically. | HOA argues prejudgment interest not automatic because amount not fixed until trial. | Prejudgment interest denied; damages not calculable with certainty before ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornia v. Wilcox, 898 P.2d 1379 (Utah 1995) (prejudgment interest may be proper where damages are fixed and calculable with mathematical accuracy)
- Iron Head Constr., Inc. v. Gurney, 207 P.3d 1231 (Utah 2009) (damages not readily calculable -> no prejudgment interest)
- Shoreline Dev., Inc. v. Utah Cnty., 835 P.2d 207 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (relevance of nature of claim for prejudgment interest cautioned)
- Kimball v. Kimball, 217 P.3d 733 (Utah 2009) (equitable claims generally do not support prejudgment interest due to lack of mathematical certainty)
- Snow, Nuffer, Engstrom & Drake v. Tanasse, 980 P.2d 208 (Utah 1999) (definition of ‘chose in action’ for prejudgment interest questions)