619 N.E.2d 90 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1993
On August 29, 1989, following a bench trial, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas found defendants-appellees, Dean Smith et al., liable to plaintiffs-appellants, Raymond Wilson et al., for fraudulent misrepresentation. The court entered a judgment for the appellants for $21,297.99. This judgment did not specifically mention whether interest accrued on the award, nor did the appellants move the court for interest on the award. This court then affirmed the trial court's judgment. Wilson v.Zender (Jan. 30, 1991), Summit App. No. 14263, unreported, 1991 WL 11602.
On March 19, 1992, appellees deposited $21,197.99 with the trial court. The trial court then issued an entry of satisfaction of judgment on March 20, 1992.1 Appellants appeal from the entry of satisfaction of judgment, raising two assignments of errors. *80
"Plaintiffs are entitled as a matter of law to statutory interest upon their money judgment, and it was error for the trial court to declare the judgment satisfied and paid in full where the funds deposited with the court by the defendants did not include any amount as and for interest."
In their first assignment of error, appellants claim that the trial court should not have found the judgment satisfied because statutorily required interest had accrued on the award from the date of judgment. We agree.
R.C.
"(A) In cases other than those provided for in sections
"(B) Except as provided in divisions (C) and (D) of this section, interest on a judgment, decree, or order for thepayment of money rendered in a civil action based on tortiousconduct, including but not limited to a civil action based on tortious conduct that has been settled by agreement of the parties, shall be computed from the date the judgment, decree,or order is rendered to the date on which the money is paid." (Emphasis added.)
The statute entitles a party receiving a definite money judgment to interest upon that award automatically, as a matter of law. Testa v. Roberts (1988),
Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is well taken. *81
"Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs in this case, both as a matter of law and by virtue of the court's judgment, and it was error for the trial court to declare the judgment satisfied and paid in full where the funds deposited with the court by the defendants did not include any amount as and for costs."
In their second assignment of error, appellants claim that the trial court wrongly entered a satisfaction of judgment because appellees failed to pay court costs as required by the judgment. In the record, it is noted on the Summit County Appearance and Execution Docket that appellees paid $465.70, the total court costs resulting from the bench trial on December 14, 1989.
Therefore, appellant's second assignment of error has no merit.
The satisfaction of judgment entry by the trial court is vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment accordingly.
REECE and COOK, JJ., concur.