ALBUQUERQUE COMMONS PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Petitioner,
v.
CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant-Respondent.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
*857 Mettler & LeCuyer, P.C., Stephen T. LeCuyer, Timothy V. Flynn-O'Brien, Philip B. Davis, Bryan Law Firm, George R. Bryan, III, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.
Robert M. White, Mark Andrew Hirsch, Lorenz Law, Alice Tomlinson Lorenz, Albuquerque, NM, for Respondent.
Law Offices of Jane B. Yohalem, Jane B. Yohalem, Santa Fe, NM, Law Office of William E. Snead, William E. Snead, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.
OPINION
MAES, Justice.
{1} The issue presented in this appeal is whether NMSA 1978, Section 56-8-4(D) (2004), bars an award of post-judgment interest against the state and its political subdivisions when a plaintiff successfully establishes the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) (Section 1983). If post-judgment interest is not barred, we must determine whether federal law or state law establishes the proper rate of interest. We conclude that the state and its political subdivisions are not exempt from post-judgment interest because the Legislature plainly intended interest to be awarded "as otherwise provided by statute," Section 56-8-4(D), and a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2006) (Section 1961), provides for post-judgment interest in Section 1983 actions. We further conclude that the Legislature intended the interest rate set forth in Section 1961 to apply to Section 1983 actions filed in state court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I. BACKGROUND
{2} This is the second time this case has come before us for review. See Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council of Albuquerque (ACP II),
{3} ACP moved for post-judgment interest, claiming that Section 56-8-4(D), which prohibits the award of post-judgment interest against the state or its political subdivisions except as otherwise provided by statute or common law, is preempted by federal law because it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes" and objectives of Section 1983. Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co.,
{4} The City appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the district court. See Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council of Albuquerque (ACP I),
{5} On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's award of damages in the amount of $8,349,095 and the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but "reverse[d] the award of post-judgment interest." Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council of Albuquerque (ACP III),
{6} ACP filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 34-5-14(B) (1972) and Rule 12-502 NMRA. Albuquerque Commons P'ship *859 v. City Council of Albuquerque,
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{7} To determine whether the state and its political subdivisions are exempt from post-judgment interest on money damages awarded in a Section 1983 action and the applicable interest rate, if any, we must examine Section 56-8-4, which governs interest "on judgments and decrees for the payment of money." Section 56-8-4(A). "Statutory construction is a matter of law we review de novo." State v. Nick R.,
III. DISCUSSION
{8} "[P]ost-judgment interest is routinely awarded in Section 1983 cases filed in federal court." ACP III,
{9} However, the Court of Appeals held that Section 1961 does not apply to Section 1983 actions filed in state court. ACP III,
{10} Instead, ACP and NMTLA claim that Section 56-8-4(D) incorporates Section 1961 by reference because it permits an award of post-judgment interest against the state and its political subdivisions "as otherwise provided by statute." Section 56-8-4(D). Alternatively, ACP and NMTLA argue that Section 56-8-4(D)'s bar on post-judgment interest frustrates the remedial purpose of Section 1983 and, therefore, violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Additionally, ACP argues that Section 56-8-4(D) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, because it "creates several classes of civil rights victims with state court [Section] 1983 judgments, resulting in irrationally inconsistent entitlements to post-judgment interest."
{11} The City responds that the statutory phrase, "otherwise provided by statute," in Section 56-8-4(D) refers exclusively to state statutes, and therefore the state and its political subdivisions are exempt from post-judgment interest on Section 1983 actions filed in state court. Additionally, the City claims that the Section 56-8-4(D) bar on post-judgment interest does not violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, because Congress explicitly exempted state court judgments from post-judgment interest under the plain language of Section 1961(c)(4). The City further argues that ACP's unpreserved equal protection claim lacks merit, because Section 56-8-4(D) is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, namely, protection of government funds.
A. Whether the City Is Exempt From Post-Judgment Interest Under Section 56-8-4(D)
{12} We begin our analysis with Section 56-8-4(A), which provides, in relevant *860 part, that "[i]nterest shall be allowed on judgments and decrees for the payment of money from entry and shall be calculated at the rate of eight and three-fourths percent per year." Thus, "[p]ostjudgment interest on judgments and decrees for payment of money is mandatory and accrues at the statutory rate from the date of entry of judgment." Sunwest Bank v. Colucci,
{13} To resolve the claim on appeal, we must determine whether the statutory language "as otherwise provided" in Section 56-8-4(D) refers solely to state statutes and common law or whether it contemplates federal statutes and common law as well. In interpreting Section 56-8-4(D), our primary focus is the plain language of the statute, and we refrain from adding words to the statutory text unless necessary to conform the statute to legislative intent or to prevent an absurd result. See Maestas,
{14} Accordingly, post-judgment interest may be collected against the state and its political subdivisions where "statute or common law" so permits. The City would have us read "statute" to mean "state statute," thereby removing federal law permitting the collection of post-judgment interest from the purview of the exception. Such a construction, however, forces us to add words to the statutory text. We discouraged such a practice in Maestas and, accordingly, decline to supplement the statutory text in the present instance.
{15} We next must determine whether the Legislature intended Section 1961 to constitute law which "otherwise" provides for post-judgment interest against a governmental defendant. When the Legislature enacts a statute we presume that "it is aware of existing statutes." State v. Marquez,
{16} When interpreting Section 56-8-4(D), we conclude the Legislature enacted Section 56-8-4(D) against the backdrop of federal legislation that permitted the collection of post-judgment interest. Therefore, in Section 1983 actions, we read the two statutory provisions in harmony. We hold that the Legislature contemplated Section 1961 as law which "otherwise" provides for post-judgment interest against the "state and its political subdivisions" within the meaning of Section 56-8-4(D); accordingly, where a plaintiff prevails in a Section 1983 action, Section 56-8-4(D) *861 incorporates the award of post-judgment interest from Section 1961.
{17} We also note that this interpretation places Section 56-8-4(D) in harmony with Section 1983 and its remedial goals. A central objective of Section 1983 is to enable "those deprived of their civil rights to recover full compensation from the governmental officials responsible for those deprivations." Felder v. Casey,
{18} Where a judgment is not timely satisfied, post-judgment interest is a key element of full compensation. The Court of Appeals held below that post-judgment interest serves "only as an enforcement mechanism" which encourages prompt payment of judgments. ACP III,
{19} The City argues that ACP is not entitled to post-judgment interest because subsection (c)(4) of Section 1961 prevents the application of the statute in state courts. Subsection (c)(4) states that Section 1961 "shall not be construed to affect the interest on any judgment of any court not specified in this section." The City contends that this subsection conclusively limits the application of Section 1961 to the federal courts.
{20} We recognize that subsection (c)(4) has been taken to mean that Section 1961 cannot be "directly invoked" in state courts. Gaulin,
B. Whether Section 56-8-4(A) or Section 1961 Establishes the Proper Rate of Interest
{21} Having found that ACP is entitled to an award of post-judgment interest, we next consider what rate of interest is to apply. Section 56-8-4(A) and Section 1961 *862 each provide for a distinct rate of interest. Section 56-8-4(A) calculates interest "at the rate of eight and three-fourths percent per year." By contrast, Section 1961 provides for interest at a floating rate "equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment." (Footnote omitted.) ACP and NMTLA contend that Section 56-8-4(A)'s static 8 3/4% rate, as opposed to the floating federal rate specified in Section 1961, is applicable.
{22} We note that if the rate dictated by Section 1961 is to apply, it does not apply directly. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c)(4); Gaulin,
{23} When faced with two provisions addressing the same topic, we resort to a familiar principle of statutory construction: "a statute dealing with a specific subject will be considered an exception to, and given effect over, a more general statute." Stinbrink v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz.,
{24} Section 56-8-4 is structured such that subsection (A) provides 8 3/4% as the general rate of post-judgment interest and subsequent provisions govern special circumstances. For instance, where judgment is rendered on an instrument bearing a particular rate of interest or where tortious or willful conduct is involved, the general 8 3/4% rate provided in subsection (A) does not govern. See § 56-8-4(A). Likewise, Section 56-8-4(D) also governs a special circumstancewhere post-judgment interest is sought from the state or its political subdivisions. Specific provisions govern over general provisions. See Schultz,
{25} We note that other jurisdictions have applied the post-judgment interest rate defined by Section 1961 instead of the rate defined by state law in order to preserve the uniformity of federal remedies. See Militello v. Ann & Grace, Inc.,
IV. CONCLUSION
{26} We conclude that Section 56-8-4(D) contemplates Section 1961 as law which "otherwise" provides for the award of post-judgment interest against the state and its political subdivisions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals that ACP was not entitled to post-judgment interest. A plaintiff who has successfully obtained a judgment under Section 1983 is entitled to interest pursuant to the rate specified in Section 1961(a).
{27} IT IS SO ORDERED.
*863 WE CONCUR: CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice, and PATRICIO M. SERNA, RICHARD C. BOSSON, and EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justices.