[brief] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DECLINING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL MISAPPROPRIATION.  (27T77:7 TO 78:23)  Though the trial court’s judgment is almost entirely correct, the court below erred in one key respect: it denied Plaintiffs the full quantum of pre-judgment interest to which they were entitled.  Plaintiffs sought $838,810.40 in pre-judgment interest, calculated at prevailing court rates for each transaction where the trial court determined the defendants had misappropriated funds.  (Pa364-66; Da1012-14).  The trial court rejected that approach and instead awarded $190,480.68 in pre-judgment interest, only dating back to July 20, 2020, when Plaintiffs’ filed their complaint.  (27T77:7 to 78:23).  Generally, matters of pre-judgment interest are subject to the trial court’s discretion.  Lautek Corp. v. Image Bus. Sys. Corp., 276 N.J. Super. 531, 551 (App. Div. 1994).  Here, the trial court limited Plaintiffs’ pre-judgment interest demand based on R. 4:42-11(b), as it found liability based on the tort theory of conversion in addition to the contract-based claims.  (27T77:9 to 78:23).  The Rule’s limitation makes sense in the context of unliquidated damage claims in tort actions.  A defendant hauled into court by an injured plaintiff has no idea what his exposure might be until the jury renders a verdict, so the limitation furthers an important fairness interest for defendants in that respect.  However, this is not a case in which Plaintiffs asserted an unliquidated damage claim.  The trial court tied the losses that Plaintiffs suffered here to specific dates when the defendants diverted specific amounts from [...] and [...].  Moreover, the trial court found that the defendants’ misappropriated these funds without the Plaintiffs’ knowledge.  In similar circumstances, “where the claims are for a liquidated sum, prejudgment interest is regarded as compensatory. ”  *Lautek*, 276 N.J. Super. at 551.  The purpose of interest in such a case is to “cover the value of the sum awarded for the prejudgment period during which the defendant had the benefit of the monies to which the plaintiff is found to have been earlier entitled. ”  *Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co.*, 65 N.J. 474, 506 (1974).  This principle holds even when defendants in good faith contest the validity of claims because they are able to use and enjoy the funds, earning “interest, dividends, and other benefits . . . whereas the plaintiff was deprived of any such enjoyment. ”  *Id.*  In this case, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ the full amount of prejudgment interest for each of the defendants’ misappropriations because it believed that would be “piling on. ” (27T78:6-8).  This was error.  In the context of a liquidated or readily ascertainable sum, the award of prejudgment interest is compensatory and denying such relief when the defendants enjoyed the funds for an extended period of time is an abuse of discretion.  See, Klein v. Cty. of Hudson, 187 N.J. Super. 603 (Law Div. 1980).  This is because a plaintiff is denied the use of his money from the moment the funds in issue are taken.  Rova Farms, 65 N.J. at 506.  This is consistent with Plaintiffs’ proposed $838,810.40 calculation.  The alternative approach advocated by the defendants below and adopted by the trial court rewards the defendants for their nefarious conduct.  Therefore, the trial court’s judgment as to this sole issue should be reversed.  **CONCLUSION**