PDA, Inc. instituted action against The Haas Corporation to recover $17,912.50 as payment for services performed under a contract to provide data processing software. The Haas Corporation answered and counterclaimed for damages incurred because of an alleged failure of consideration. The case was tried without a jury and the trial court entered judgment for PDA in thе amount of $5,000 on the main claim, and in favor of PDA and against The Haas Corporation on the counterclaim. PDA appeals.
*786
The common practice of directing counsel for the prevailing party to prepare the judgment fоr the trial court’s signature, although not reversible error, has been greatly disfavored by this court, as well as by the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g.,
North Fulton &c. Hosp. v. State Health &c.,
The record reveals that at the close of the evidence and after hearing argument of counsel, the trial court deliberated, then announced its decision from the bench awarding appellant $5,000. The trial court found that although a contract existed between the parties after substantial performance under the contract by both parties, there came a point where both parties ceased to operate thereunder. The trial court found that this сessation was permitted under the contract and calculated that appellant was entitled to $5,000 in its claim against appellee.
The trial court thеreafter directed appellant, as the prevailing party, to prepare the judgment for the court’s signature. In response to a direct query from aрpellant’s counsel as to what should be included in the findings of fact, the trial court summarized its findings as stated above and explicitly directed counsel to include thosе findings in the prepared judgment. The record further reflects, however, that the judgment as drafted by appellant omitted any reference to the trial court’s finding that the parties ceased to operate under the contract. We note that the judgment was dated six months after the hearing at which the trial court’s oral deсision was announced.
1. Appellant contends that the written findings of fact demand а judgment in its favor for the full sum sought under the contract and fail to support the lesser sum awarded by the trial court. It is apparent that had the judgment included the trial court’s finding thаt the parties at one point ceased to operate under the contract, the evidence adduced at trial would have supported fully the аward of $5,000 as the value of the work performed by appellant after the parties ceased operating under the contract. However, the omissiоn of the trial court’s finding on this matter results in a judgment which seemingly supports the full sum sought by apрellant. Although we ac
*787
knowledge that the trial court is responsible for the contents of the judgment as signed, see
North Fulton &c. Hosp.,
supra at 810, it is equally well established that a litigant “ ‘cаnnot complain of a judgment, order, or ruling that his own procedure or conduct procured or aided in causing.’ [Cits.]”
Dodd v. Dodd,
2. Contrary to appellant’s argument, it is apparent that the $5,000 awarded was not a liquidated amount, and thus prejudgment interest would be awardable only at the discretion of the factfinder.
Norair Engineering Corp. v. St. Joseph's Hosp.,
Judgment affirmed.