Touch-N-Buy v. Girocheck Financial, Inc, 2:15-cv-10863

Background

Touch-N-Buy (Plaintiff) and GiroCheck (Defendant) had a contract (July 2012); GiroCheck terminated it on October 13, 2014. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and other claims; a bench trial on breach occurred Aug. 1–4, 2017.
On Feb. 5, 2018 the Court found breach and entered judgment for Plaintiff for $40,390.45 plus interest; earlier (Aug. 2016) the Court had awarded Defendant $11,698.38 for attorney fees under Michigan’s SRCA (not yet paid).
Defendant moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to amend the Feb. 2018 judgment to set off the earlier $11,698.38 fee award against Plaintiff’s judgment (seeking a net judgment and amended interest start date).
The Court identified an omission in its prior judgment: it had not specified prejudgment vs. post-judgment interest; it therefore corrected the judgment under Rule 60(a) to clarify interest components.
The Court calculated prejudgment interest under Florida law (loss theory) at 4.75% from Oct. 13, 2014 through Feb. 5, 2018: $6,377.93 on damages of $40,436.75, for a total subject to post-judgment interest of $46,814.68.
The Court denied Defendant’s requested setoff under Rule 59(e), holding no equitable need to offset the separate awards; post-judgment interest accrues under 28 U.S.C. §1961 beginning the date of this order (May 7, 2018).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should amend the judgment to set off Defendant’s earlier attorney-fee award against Plaintiff’s breach judgment	Plaintiff opposed setoff; argued it would reduce prejudgment interest and could let Defendant avoid interest	Defendant sought setoff of $11,698.38 against $40,390.45 to produce a net judgment and change interest accrual timing for efficiency	Denied — no equitable basis for setoff; both awards remain separate
Whether the judgment should be corrected to specify prejudgment vs. post-judgment interest	Plaintiff asserted interest should run from breach and that clarification was needed	N/A (issue arose from Court omission)	Granted under Rule 60(a) — judgment amended to specify prejudgment and post-judgment interest
What is the proper prejudgment interest amount and accrual period	Plaintiff sought prejudgment interest from date of breach on pecuniary damages	Defendant implicitly disputed timing/effect of any subsequent setoff on interest	Prejudgment interest awarded at 4.75% from Oct 13, 2014 to Feb 5, 2018 = $6,377.93; added to damages
When should post-judgment interest commence	Plaintiff argued post-judgment interest should run from Feb 5, 2018 judgment entry	Defendant asked post-judgment interest to commence only after adjudication of its Rule 59 motion	Court stayed execution under Rule 62(b)(3) and held post-judgment interest begins on date of this May 7, 2018 order (per Rule 62 stay); interest otherwise calculated under 28 U.S.C. §1961

Key Cases Cited

Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (Florida loss-theory governs prejudgment interest on pecuniary contract damages)
Broad Street Energy Co. v. Endeavor Ohio, LLC, 806 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2015) (federal law governs post-judgment interest calculations)
Estate of Riddle v. So. Farm Bur. Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2005) (in diversity cases, federal law controls post-judgment interest; state law controls prejudgment interest)
In re Walter, 282 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical/omission errors to reflect intended judgment)
Vaughter v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 817 F.2d 685 (11th Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(a) supports correcting judgments to reflect trial intent)
Pogor v. Makita U.S.A., Inc., 135 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(a) can support adding omitted prejudgment interest amounts)
Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., 46 So.3d 42 (Fla. 2010) (pecuniary contract damages should be made whole as of date of loss)
Craigside, LLC v. GDC View, LLC, 74 So.3d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (prejudgment interest in contract actions typically runs from breach date)
Genser v. Reef Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 100 So.3d 760 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (prejudgment interest becomes part of total that then accrues post-judgment interest)
Gordon Sel-Way v. United States, 270 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2001) (recognizes common-law right of setoff between mutual debts)