Filed 1/27/16 Hebberd-Kulow Enterprises v Kelomar CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

HEBBERD-KULOW ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KELOMAR, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D066505

 (Super. Ct. No. ECU03823)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa, 

Judge. Affirmed in part as to the jury verdict's award of interest, and the balance is 

affirmed as modified with directions to prepare an amended final judgment.

Sutherland & Gerber and Lowell F. Sutherland for Defendant and Appellant.

Horton, Knox, Carter & Foote, Orlando B. Foote and Margarita McKee Haugaard 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This appeal comes to us after a retrial pursuant to remand from our prior published 

opinion, in which this court reversed in part a judgment after jury verdict in favor of 

plaintiff and respondent Hebberd-Kulow Enterprises, Inc. (HKE). (Hebberd-Kulow 
2

Enterprises, Inc. v. Kelomar, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 272 (our prior opinion).) Over 

many years, defendant and appellant Kelomar, Inc. (Kelomar) placed orders for

agricultural supplies with HKE, which provided Kelomar invoices for the goods

delivered. During the latter few years of their business relationship, HKE included on its 

invoices an interest charge for late payments (the interest provision).

In the first trial, the jury awarded HKE a principal sum of damages for the goods it 

supplied to Kelomar, as well as an interest award, and it also awarded damages to 

Kelomar on its cross-complaint. We reversed that judgment on the verdict as to the 

interest award only, after we determined from the record that essential factual issues were 

not sent to the jury on whether the contracts between HKE and Kelomar included a term 

representing an enforceable interest provision. (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2207; all further 

statutory references are to this code unless noted.) On remand, the trial court took further 

evidence and the jury returned a verdict determining that HKE was entitled to interest at 

1.5 percent per month on the invoices. In a minute order, the clerk recorded the trial 

court's acceptance of the verdict and filed a notice of entry of judgment.

Subsequently, HKE moved for an award of expenses of proof on matters for which 

it had requested admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420.) The motion was granted and 

the court ordered the preparation of an amended judgment. A "final judgment" was 

prepared and filed, giving the history of the proceedings and setting the net amount of the 

judgment at $412,023.05, plus postjudgment interest and costs of suit, as well as an 

award of attorney fees as costs of proof, in the amount of $74,725.25.
3

Kelomar appeals, contending (1) under a proper interpretation of section 2207, and 

in light of the parties' prior course of dealings, the evidence was undisputed that they

never agreed to include interest charges on late payments as part of their contracts; (2) the 

court erred or abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees under Code of Civil

Procedure section 2033.420, because Kelomar showed that not all of the matters were 

proved exactly as stated in the requests for admissions (RFA), or that the admissions 

sought were "of no substantial importance" within the meaning of the statutory scheme; 

and (3) the final judgment signed by the court changed the terms of the clerk's earlier, 

ministerial entry of judgment on the verdict, such that it was unauthorized or erroneous. 

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 664 [entry of judgment provisions]; 2033.420, subd. (b)(2) [RFA 

costs criteria].)

Having reviewed the record, we conclude (1) substantial evidence supports the 

jury's determination of the questions properly sent to it about the intentions of the parties

concerning the terms of their agreement, and the underlying substantive judgment on the 

verdict is affirmed; (2) the record does not show any abuse of discretion in the trial 

court's award of attorney fees as costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure

§ 2033.420; and (3) the trial court must prepare an amended final judgment that reflects

the separate awards of principal, interest, and costs to HKE, that properly designates the 

dates that postjudgment interest began to accrue on the awards of principal and interest, 

and that sets forth any credits due to Kelomar for amounts it has previously paid toward 

the net judgment amount (either principal or interest).
4

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

As set forth in our prior opinion, over the course of about 20 years (1987-2007), 

HKE sold goods to Kelomar. Normally, Kelomar provided HKE with a purchase order 

number for the requested items and negotiated the price over the telephone. After 

delivery of the items, HKE would send Kelomar an invoice corresponding to the 

applicable purchase order number. Since 2003, HKE's invoices have contained on them a 

printed term: "Unpaid invoices beyond terms will be assessed a monthly service charge 

of 1-1/2%." Kelomar often paid late, but HKE did not charge Kelomar interest on the 

late payments.

The dispute between the parties arose after HKE delivered about $250,000 worth 

of goods in the spring of 2007. These goods were shipped separately with a total of 33 

corresponding invoices (the 33 invoices). In 2007, the parties had a falling out over a 

different set of contractual transactions (HKE's delivery of certain nonconforming labels).

Kelomar stopped paying HKE.

A. First Trial; Appeal

In 2008, HKE sued Kelomar for its failure to pay for the supplies shipped under 

the 33 invoices. In response, Kelomar filed a cross-complaint alleging damages had 

arisen from HKE's nonconforming products that were provided under the unrelated

contract. Kelomar declined to pay the 33 invoices.

At the first trial, the jury awarded HKE damages in the amount of $439,792.99, 

consisting of $259,120.50 principal and $180,672.49 interest. The jury also awarded 
5

Kelomar $27,769.94 on its cross-complaint. The net amount of the HKE judgment was 

$412,023.05, plus postjudgment interest and costs of suit.

Kelomar appealed, contending that the parties never intended any interest payment 

or service charge to be part of their contract, as shown by their prior course of conduct. 

Kelomar argued that the issue of whether the interest provision contained in the invoices 

was a term of the contracts should be governed by section 2207.

In the prior appeal, we agreed with Kelomar's claims that the dispute should be 

resolved according to the terms of section 2207. We held that the trial court had erred 

during the first trial, when issuing its order on a particular motion in limine (No. 4), 

because the trial court prematurely determined as a matter of law that the interest 

provision was part of the contract. Instead, the record showed that no evidence was yet 

before the trial court, and the evidence was conflicting on the interest term of the 

contract, as it later acknowledged.

Accordingly, we reversed the judgment as to the interest portion of the verdict and 

returned the matter for presentation of evidence. We interpreted the record as showing 

that counsel had represented that additional evidence was available that would bear upon 

the issue of whether the parties intended to include the payment of interest as part of their 

contracts. The record at that time did not support the trial court's decision as a matter of 

law that the interest provision was a term of the parties' contracts.

B. Second Trial

On remand, evidence was presented by representatives of each side, concerning 

their understandings of the transactions in light of their own usual business practices and 
6

those of the farming and agricultural supply communities. The jury heard the individuals'

testimony about the events and communications that had occurred over time, leading to 

the understandings and the disputes between the parties. We summarize that evidence in 

part I.C, post. Copies of the 33 invoices were admitted into evidence.

After being instructed in the language of sections 2202 and 2207 and related 

sections, the jury returned a verdict that HKE was entitled to obtain 1.5 percent per 

month in interest on the subject invoices. The verdict did not include any dollar amount. 

The minute order reflects that the court accepted the verdict and the clerk sent out a 

notice of entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.) Further proceedings were held on 

HKE's motion for costs of proof pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. 

(See pt. II, post.) Eventually, the trial court rendered a final judgment that recited the 

verdict had been reached and set forth a net award of damages, $412,023.05, plus 

postjudgment interest and the costs of proof award, with costs. (Pt. III, post.) Kelomar 

appealed both the judgment and the posttrial order awarding costs of proof.

DISCUSSION

I

AWARD OF INTEREST

A. Statutory Scheme and Effect of Prior Opinion

As explained in our prior opinion, it is undisputed that these parties are merchants 

(§ 2104, subd. (1)) and thus that their transactions are governed by the California 

Uniform Commercial Code. Section 2202 removes merchants' written agreements for the 

sale of goods from the operation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1856, the general 
7

parol evidence statute. (See 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Sales, § 33, 

p. 46.) Section 2202 is not a statute that provides particular guidance to a court to 

determine if a writing is intended to be a final expression of the parties' agreement. 

Instead, it directs the court on what evidence it should admit to explain or supplement the 

terms of the agreement. (§ 2202; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, § 33 at p. 46.)

At all the relevant times, there has been no dispute that the parties entered into 

multiple contracts, or that the invoices correctly listed the agreed upon price of the goods, 

which were delivered. Rather, the dispute concerns whether the parties agreed to the 

interest provision on the invoices. In our prior opinion, we determined that "Section 

2207 is the proper statute to apply to the invoices and the analysis of whether the parties 

intended the interest provision to be part of the parties' agreement. Section 2207 provides 

as follows:

'(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written 

confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an 

acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from 

those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made 

conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.

'(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for 

addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part 

of the contract unless:

'(a) The offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;

'(b) They materially alter it; or

'(c) Notification of objection to them has already been given or is 

given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.

'(3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a 

contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the 
8

writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such 

case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on 

which the writings of the parties agree, together with any 

supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this 

code.' "

As governing authority, our prior opinion discussed the holdings of Steiner v. 

Mobil Oil Corp. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 90 (Steiner). "[S]ection 2207 inquires as to whether 

the parties intended to complete an agreement: 'Under this Article a proposed deal which 

in commercial understanding has in fact been closed is recognized as a contract.' 

[Citation.] If the parties intend to contract, but the terms of their offer and acceptance 

differ, section 2207 authorizes a court to determine which terms are part of the contract, 

either by reference to the parties' own dealings [citation], or by reference to other 

provisions of the code." (Steiner, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 99-100.)

These "supplementary terms" mentioned in section 2207, subdivision (3) may 

include terms incorporated as a result of the parties' course of dealing. (Transwestern 

Pipeline Co. v. Monsanto Co. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 502, 516.) "The terms of an 

agreement formed pursuant to [section] 2207[, subdivision ](3) are those terms upon 

which the parties expressly agreed, coupled with the standard 'gap-filler' provisions of 

Article Two." (Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH and Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) 240 F.3d 

781, 788 (Textile Unlimited, Inc.).) Section 1303, subdivisions (a) through (e) define the 

effect of the parties' previous course of dealing, course of performance, or usage of trade, 

as they may supply supplemental contractual terms pursuant to section 2207.

In our prior opinion, we noted that at the first trial, "the parties appeared to focus 

more on waiver of the right to collect interest, not whether the interest provision was 
9

actually part of the parties' contracts. The jury was instructed on waiver, the parties 

submitted evidence regarding waiver, and closing arguments concerned waiver. Simply 

put, the issue of whether the interest provision was an agreed upon term was not 

presented to the jury. However, based upon the court's comments that this was a 

'significant' disputed fact, it should have been." (See Kawasho Internat., U.S.A., Inc. v. 

Lakewood Pipe Service, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 785, 791 (Kawasho).)

At this retrial, directed toward properly applying the alternative standards of

section 2207, the trial court allowed the jury to hear conflicting evidence on the issue of 

whether the parties reached a contractual agreement about interest, and on what terms. 

These are questions for the fact finder, when conflicting versions of the parties'

negotiations require a determination of credibility. (See Kawasho, supra, 152 

Cal.App.3d at p. 791; Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah 

Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 220.)

When a trial has been conducted, as here, on the issue of whether an additional 

term contained in an invoice or business document was part of the parties' contract, as a 

factual matter depending on the intent of the parties, a substantial evidence review will be 

conducted on appeal. (Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co., Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 368, 378-

379; Kawasho, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at p. 791; see Southwest Concrete Products v. 

Gosh Construction Corp. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 701, 709 (Southwest Concrete), 

[acknowledging in another context that an additional term (late charges) "became part of 

the contract" under section 2207].)
10

B. Framework for Retrial

On remand, the principal award to HKE was not in dispute, nor was the award to 

Kelomar of $27,769.94 on its cross-complaint. This left a balance of about $231,000 that 

Kelomar owed as principal to HKE, and it has evidently been paid. On the issue of 

entitlement to an interest award, the pleadings alleged there were 33 disputed invoices, 

but the RFAs that HKE served on Kelomar involved only 31 of them. Nevertheless, all 

33 invoices were presented to the jury and the parties continued to argue the matter as 

involving each of them.

It is first important to note which issues were not presented at the retrial. HKE did 

not claim that the invoices alone amounted to the operative agreements. (See India Paint 

& Lacquer Co. v. United Steel Products Corp. (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 597, 607 ["The 

prevailing rule is that an invoice, standing alone, is not a contract, [citations]; and a buyer 

is ordinarily not bound by statements thereon which are not a part of the original 

agreement."].) Also, the Kelomar purchase orders and the HKE invoices did not present 

competing terms which each side was attempting to enforce. (See also Diamond Fruit 

Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp. (9th Cir. 1986) 794 F.2d 1440, 1443.) The case was not 

tried as a " 'battle of the forms,' " such as where contracting parties have exchanged preprinted forms "that attempt to cast liability for certain categories of damage on the other 

party to the transaction." (Frank M. Booth, Inc. v. Reynolds Metals Co. (E.D.Cal. 1991) 

754 F.Supp. 1441, 1445; Transwestern Pipeline Co., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 

["Common sense tells us the mere exchange of forms containing inconsistent terms, for 
11

however long a period, cannot establish a common understanding between the parties as 

to which set of conflicting terms is part of their contract."].)

Instead, HKE argued to the jury that the current trial chiefly concerned the way the 

agricultural business was conducted, and what happened between the parties in 2007 to 

2008, when Kelomar stopped paying on the invoices. Kelomar's argument and evidence 

essentially addressed the course of dealing and performance during the parties' business 

relationship, to argue that its effect was that the interest language on the invoices, even if 

known to it, contained an additional term that it would never be enforced. Although this 

resembles a waiver argument concerning the interest term, the second trial addressed the 

issues differently, on what terms actually existed in the first place.

C. Conflicting Evidence Presented at Retrial

1. HKE

On the issue of whether the parties had reached an understanding about interest as 

a portion of their agreement, HKE presented testimony from its president, Michael J.

Kulow, about his dealings with Kelomar starting in the 1980s. At that time, both HKE 

and Kelomar were new companies, and Kulow met with Kelomar's founder, Michael W.

Morgan, and they discussed the process for supply by HKE, as a middleman, of 

agricultural packing materials and other goods to Kelomar. Kulow remembers that he 

discussed with Kelomar how its payments should be made to HKE in a "timely fashion,"

but testified they did not anticipate what would happen if they were not. Kulow does not 

recall any discussion of interest. During cross-examination, Kulow admitted that he left 
12

that early meeting with the feeling that there was an agreement that "things would be the 

way they were in the trade," but he never told Mr. Morgan about that belief.

At trial, Kulow told the jury about how deals are reached when suppliers sell 

agricultural packing materials to growers, according to industry customs and practices. 

Kelomar sent purchase orders or discussed orders with HKE representatives. HKE then 

ordered the goods from other suppliers for delivery. HKE would then generate an 

invoice to be sent to the customer, stating the terms.

Generally, as long as a customer kept paying the bills, HKE did not charge interest 

on overdue invoices. Due to its bad experiences with a few other farmers who did not 

pay their bills, HKE added an interest term to its invoices starting in 2003. These terms 

included (1) unpaid invoices for labels or miscellaneous items to accrue interest after 30 

days at 1.5 percent; and (2) corrugated materials or related items to accrue interest after 

60 days at 1.5 percent.

Kulow understood that charging interest was a norm in the industry for suppliers 

like HKE. It was a disincentive for late payment of invoices by customers. Other HKEKelomar invoices had incentives for timely payment, such as a discount. Some of the 33 

invoices also had freight charges added to them.

After HKE added the interest provisions to its invoices, Kulow did not discuss the 

matter with anyone from Kelomar, and did not receive any complaints from it. He was 

not asked by anyone at Kelomar what would happen if it did not pay its bill. Generally, 

HKE valued the ongoing business of its customers, such as Kelomar, and did not charge 

interest to them for reasons of continued goodwill, and because that was how bills were 
13

usually handled in the agricultural industry, which is time sensitive depending on harvest 

season. As a supplier, HKE understood that farmers were often cash poor at the end of 

the growing season and that delays in paying bills were not unexpected. A grower has to 

make initial investments of capital in order to grow the crops, and "[b]y the time you get 

to harvest, generally, people are a little short of money."

For many years, Kelomar paid HKE the amounts due for goods shipped to it, 

within 30 to 60 days or by the end of the harvest season. In the spring of 2007, Kelomar 

first started to dispute paying HKE on the 33 invoices. Kelomar claimed that it incurred

damages when HKE supplied nonconforming goods to it, on another separate contract.

After HKE learned that Kelomar would not pay further, it sued for damages for

the principal amounts owed on the 33 invoices, as well as interest. HKE had not 

previously charged Kelomar interest for previous late payments.

HKE called as a witness Kelomar's previous general manager, Matthew McGuire, 

who worked at Kelomar for 18 years, around 1987 to 2003. He testified at trial that when 

he oversaw its accounts payable, he determined which bills needed to be paid based on 

when they were due and what was the status of the company cash flow. He understood 

that many vendors, such as HKE, had in place both incentive and disincentive payment 

terms. McGuire thought that the 1.5 percent interest provisions on HKE's invoices "were 

part of the terms." His opinion was that "many vendors had terms to pay interest, and we 

knew they could charge interest at any time. So it's better to pay it as soon as we can than 

to incur the wrath of a vendor." When necessary to retain business relationships, 

Kelomar paid interest to certain vendors.
14

McGuire stated that while he was at Kelomar, if there were any problems with 

invoices, he and the seller tried to negotiate and resolve the matters. The presence or 

absence of the interest provisions in HKE's invoices was not a factor in determining 

whether Kelomar should pay the principal amount of an invoice.

2. Kelomar

Kelomar's founder, Michael Morgan, testified about meeting with Kulow in the 

1980's when their companies were both new. Morgan told the jury that "the total deal"

with HKE since "Day 1," over 20 years, was that "no interest would be charged." He 

admitted to the jury that the interest provision was always a part of the deal, but he 

believed "[i]t would not be charged." Thus, he was not concerned when he saw that term

on the invoices. Morgan, an executive, did not pay "a lot of attention to what was on the 

bottom line or the interest component," and did not see any need to protest about it to 

HKE.

Kelomar's previous office manager, Nancy Osborn, currently worked for it as a 

consultant on tax and bank issues. In 2007, she was not working for Kelomar. Her 

understanding on behalf of Kelomar was that when an invoice like HKE's "says on the 

bottom if it wasn't paid, it could be charged—not that it was. It was, it could be charged." 

She did not recall having discussed that specific subject with her superiors at Kelomar.

At the conclusion of testimony, the court read jury instructions on sections 1303, 

2202, and 2207, giving the jury a framework for applying the evidence and for making a

factual finding as to the interest provision. The special verdict decided only that HKE 

was entitled to obtain 1.5 percent per month in interest on the subject invoices.
15

D. Analysis

1. Section 2207, Subdivisions (1) and (2)

In the previous trial, it was established that the parties had established a 

contractual relationship that satisfied contract formation requirements, and the amount of 

principal due to HKE was established. (§ 2207, subd. (1); Steiner, supra, 20 Cal.3d 90, 

101.) On retrial, the evidence and arguments properly sent to the jury the questions of 

whether the interest provision had to be specifically accepted by Kelomar, as a condition 

attached to continuing to do business, and whether Kelomar had made any objections to 

the inclusion of the interest provision. (§ 2207, subd. (2)(a), (c).) Alternatively, the 

parties addressed whether collecting interest amounted to a material change in the 

agreement, in light of the background and underpinnings of the agricultural business 

practices. (§ 2207, subd. (2)(b).)

We disagree with Kelomar that only questions of law for contract interpretation 

were again presented at retrial, and that the evidence did not show any significant 

conflicts. Kelomar focuses on testimony about HKE's previous nonenforcement of the 

interest provision against Kelomar, until the dispute arose, and claims that is the only 

contractual issue. However, its argument disregards the other evidence presented to the 

jury by HKE to the effect that Kelomar was on notice not only of those terms on which 

the writings of the parties agree, but also certain "supplementary terms incorporated 

under any other provisions of this code." (§ 2207, subd. (3); Textile Unlimited, Inc., 

supra, 240 F.3d at pp. 787-789.)
16

HKE was able to establish that Kelomar did not raise objections to the interest 

provision, and that this was a standard provision in the industry that was not unexpected 

between merchants. (§ 2207, subd. (2)(a), (b), (c); see Therma-Coustics Manufacturing, 

Inc. v. Borden, Inc. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 282, 297 [adding standardized term to invoice 

not a material alteration of contract].) When denying Kelomar's motion for nonsuit, the 

trial court referred to the evidence thus far as showing that the reasonable expectations of 

the parties were that a buyer would make payments by the end of the season, before the 

next season started, and that the refusal to pay any amount should then trigger the 

timeliness provisions in the outstanding invoices. We next examine Kelomar's evidence 

on the alternative contractual analysis of section 2207, subdivision (3), regarding 

supplementary contract terms.

2. Section 2207, Subdivision (3)

The jury was given the option of deciding whether a contract arose from the 

course of dealing between the parties, as described by the witnesses. (§ 2207, subd. (3).) 

Under section 2207, subdivision (3), "the terms of the particular contract consist of those 

terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms 

incorporated under any other provisions of this code." The jury was instructed pursuant 

to section 1303, subdivisions (a), (b), and (d) that any such supplementary terms could be 

derived from the parties' previous courses of dealing, courses of performance, or usage of 

trade. (Steiner, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 99-100; see Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. 

Wyse Technology (3d Cir. 1991) 939 F.2d 91, 98-99, fns. omitted.) The jury was also 
17

given the usual instructions on how to evaluate witness credibility, regarding accounts of 

the business-related events. (Textile Unlimited, Inc., supra, 240 F.3d at pp. 787-789.)

"[S]ection 2207 looks to the actual dealings of the parties and gives legal effect to 

that conduct. . . . Section 2207 instructs us not to refuse to enforce contracts until we 

look below the surface of the parties' disagreement as to contract terms and determine 

whether the parties undertook to close their deal. Section 2207 requires courts to put 

aside the formal and academic stereotypes of traditional doctrine of offer and acceptance 

and to analyze instead what really happens." (Steiner, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 100; italics 

omitted.)

In the closing arguments, both parties discussed the course of performance and 

course of dealing between the parties, but they interpreted the evidence differently. HKE 

argued that the interest provisions became part of the deal and applied to the relationship 

between the parties, because a party is allowed to "change deal terms and have them stick 

as long as the circumstances that surround that change are consistent with what the law 

permits." (See § 1303, subds. (a), (d) [evidence on course of performance may show 

acceptance of performance in a transaction]; § 1303, subds. (b), (d) [evidence on course 

of dealing in previous transactions may show common basis of parties' understandings].)

HKE's counsel then argued that "something happened that suggested to Mr. 

Morgan and Kelomar that he shouldn't have to pay. Well, as it turned out, he did have to 

pay. He still did not pay until he was forced to. So what was the significance of that 

event, the refusal to pay and the interest provision that we're talking about here?" HKE

contended there was a change in circumstances that changed the nature of the dealings 
18

between the parties and changed the deal, to allow interest to be charged, because 

Kelomar had taken action that justified enforcement of the existing interest term. Once 

Kelomar decided not to pay the 33 invoices, HKE believed it was justified in deciding not 

to cut Kelomar any more slack on the interest provision, in reliance on the underpinnings 

of industry custom, which is time sensitive depending on harvest season. A supplier may

allow late payments based on a grower's impaired cash flow, as long as an ongoing 

relationship between the parties supported a decision to forego collection of interest. 

(See § 1303, subds. (c), (d) [evidence on usage of trade may show reasonable 

expectations of parties].) HKE had incurred costs in collecting an appropriate obligation 

that was due, and it argued that interest was properly part of their expenses.

HKE provided testimony that in 2003, based on issues it had with other customers, 

it adopted an industry practice to add interest to invoices, to serve as a disincentive for 

late payment of invoices. It did not charge interest to Kelomar as long as there was hope 

of payment. McGuire, who formerly worked for Kelomar, testified his understanding 

was that the 1.5 percent interest provisions on HKE's invoices "were part of the terms." 

Kelomar sometimes paid interest to other vendors. On behalf of Kelomar, Morgan 

conceded that interest was always a part of the deal, and the jury did not have to believe 

his testimony that there was an accompanying agreement that it would never be charged, 

even under circumstances when the business relationship between the parties had fallen 

apart and a final accounting was required.

Kelomar argued that HKE did not protect its rights by notifying Kelomar that 

interest was now a part of the agreement, and Kelomar interpreted the parties' course of 
19

dealing as only supporting a conclusion that they never agreed to an enforceable interest 

charge, even if a buyer decided not to pay amounts due. Kelomar argued it was not 

required to object to the interest provision and it never agreed to modify the underlying 

contracts. However, Kelomar's theory did not account for the change in circumstances 

when it stopped payment on the 33 invoices. HKE showed it was entitled to collect 

appropriate obligations that were due, it incurred costs in doing so, and there was no 

surprise to Kelomar that the written interest term appearing on the invoices was properly 

enforceable under these circumstances.

In this substantial evidence review, we are satisfied that the jury verdict awarding 

interest pursuant to the 33 invoices, on the basis of supplemental contractual terms known 

to and agreed to by the parties, is well supported by the testimony summarized above, 

which showed the general course of dealing in the industry and the specific transactions 

between these parties occurring within that framework. (§ 2207; Boyd v. Oscar Fisher 

Co., Inc., supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at pp. 378-379; Kawasho, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at 

p. 791.) After the interest provision was added to the invoices and made known to 

Kelomar, the parties continued to close their deals over time, and section 2207, 

subdivision (3) required the jury to take into account what really happened between the 

parties. (Steiner, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 100.) This included consideration of Kelomar's 

refusal to pay and HKE's reasonable expectations that this changed the nature of their 

contractual arrangements and made a known term, previously held in abeyance, become 

enforceable.
20

From the very general language of the verdict, we can properly infer that the jury 

found either or both of the approaches authorized by section 2207 supported HKE's 

position. Kelomar has no basis to contend that all the evidence was in agreement, such 

that the trial court should again have interpreted the plain language of the invoices to 

decide all the contractual issues as a matter of law. It has raised no meritorious 

objections to the evidentiary support for the jury's award of interest.

II

RFA COSTS AWARD

Kelomar next contends the court erred or abused its discretion in awarding 

attorney fees as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, because not all 

of the items in the RFAs were proven as specified there (e.g., different dollar amounts), 

or else the admissions HKE sought were "of no substantial importance." (Code Civ. 

Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (b)(2).) We review these claims under an abuse of discretion 

standard. (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1275-1276 

(Laabs).)

A. RFA Purposes

"The primary purpose of [such] requests for admissions is to set at rest triable 

issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial." (Brooks 

v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 509 (Brooks).) If a party 

fails to admit the truth of any matter stated in a request and if the party requesting that 

admission thereafter proves the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission 

may move the superior court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was 
21

directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including 

reasonable attorney fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (a).) The superior court 

must make such an order unless it finds (1) an objection to the request was sustained or 

a response to it was waived under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, (2) the 

admission sought was of no substantial importance, (3) the party failing to make the 

admission had reasonable grounds to believe that that party would prevail on the 

matter, or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit. (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 2033.420, subd. (b).) "An issue is of 'substantial importance' if it has 'at least some 

direct relationship to one of the central issues in the case, i.e., an issue which, if not 

proven, would have altered the results in the case.' " (Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp.

(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 634 (Wimberly).)

A party who denies a request for admission has the burden of demonstrating that 

the denial was justified under one of the four exceptions listed in Code of Civil 

Procedure section 2033.420. (Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 735 

(Garcia) [burden of justifying denial of requests for admission impliedly placed on 

responding party].) In determining whether a denial was justified, a superior court may 

consider whether " 'at the time the denial was made the party making the denial held a 

reasonably entertained good faith belief that the party would prevail on the issue at 

trial.' " (Laabs, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1276; Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at 

p. 511.) "[I]t is [not] enough for the party making the denial to 'hotly contest' the 

issue. . . . [T]here must be some reasonable basis for contesting the issue in question 

before sanctions can be avoided." (Ibid.)
22

B. RFAs and Responses; Order and Analysis

As previously noted, the pleadings alleged there were 33 disputed invoices, but the 

RFAs that HKE served on Kelomar before the first trial involved only 31 of them. 

Nevertheless, all 33 invoices were presented to the jury, the parties continued to argue the 

matter as involving all of them, and the parties have not identified any material disputed 

issues about the number of invoices involved, as relating to the RFAs. On appeal, 

Kelomar seeks to show that the statutory criteria for the costs of proof award were not 

satisfied because the court misinterpreted the effect of the RFAs and denials.

The subject matter of the RFAs was involved in the first trial, in which both 

entitlement to the principal amount of damages and to an interest award were litigated. At 

the second trial, the issues were confined to the entitlement to interest. HKE then brought 

a posttrial motion for an order of expenses of proof of matters for which it had requested 

admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420.)

As discussed at the hearing on the motion, the following general topics were 

covered by the disputed RFAs, all of which Kelomar had denied. Numbers 2 and 3 sought 

admissions that payments were due within 30 to 60 days as stated on the invoices, after 

delivery. Kelomar also objected to the "subparts" in those RFAs. It was established at the 

second trial that interest began to run when the payments were past due. At the hearing, 

Kelomar argued that it was unclear when any refusal to pay occurred, to trigger any right 

to start the accrual of interest, which had been disputed. On appeal, it complains the RFAs 

did not specify between delivery of the goods or delivery of the invoices.
23

Number 4 requested an admission that $253,778.95 in principal was due on the 31 

invoices. As noted above, the jury awarded a slightly greater sum to HKE, but the offset 

from the damages award on Kelomar's cross-complaint was applied, and Kelomar 

eventually paid HKE about $231,000 in principal. Kelomar argued to the trial court and 

on appeal that it should not have had to admit to a principal sum that was later adjusted, 

such as by the cross-complaint award.

Numbers 5 and 6 pertained specifically to the interest issues, requesting admissions 

that the sum of $5,313.22 interest was due starting August 9, 2007, on the 31 invoices, 

apparently because that is when Kelomar denied liability for payment of the principal

sums. The RFAs also asked Kelomar to admit that additional prejudgment interest had 

been accruing since that time. Kelomar argued to the trial court that it was never proven 

why such a date was significant.

Numbers 10 and 11 requested admissions that Kelomar did not pay the principal, 

although HKE had performed on all 31 invoices. Kelomar complains that this was no 

longer at issue at the second trial, or alternatively, the cross-complaint recovery was not 

sufficiently taken into account. Likewise, as to number 12, the RFA asked Kelomar to 

admit that HKE had demanded payment of the principal amounts, also not an issue at the 

second trial. At the hearing, Kelomar objected that the offset from the cross-complaint 

should have been taken into account, such that the principal amount in the RFA was 

properly disputed.

In number 13, an admission was requested that Kelomar had refused to pay on the 

31 invoices. Numbers 14 and 15 asked Kelomar to admit that it was liable for the same 
24

sum of $253,778.95 in principal, as well as expenses of proof, pursuant to section 2710

(consequential damages). At the hearing, HKE's counsel pointed out that there was proof 

at the first trial that the goods contemplated in the invoices were delivered, so an award of 

costs of proof was appropriate. Kelomar continued to argue that the dollar amount set 

forth in the RFAs did not exactly correspond to HKE's ultimate recovery. It also pointed 

out that the consequential damages were not sought pursuant to section 2710, so the RFA 

was inappropriate. HKE conceded that consequential damages were not proved, but 

argued that any effect that would have on the overall calculation of the costs of proof 

would be de minimis.

At the hearing, the court discussed each RFA individually and determined that the 

unequivocal, unqualified denials by Kelomar were unreasonable, to the degree that it was 

asserting a position not supported by fact or law, as had been ultimately determined by 

the jury verdicts. The court then ruled that the issues in the RFAs were important to the 

case and costs should be awarded on each of the contested ones, except for three that 

were not of substantial importance (RFAs nos. 12, 14, 15.) (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, 

subd. (b)(2).) The court next considered whether it could apportion fees among the items 

granted and denied, and determined that it could not do so because of the 

interrelationship of all the issues. The dollar amount of fees incurred per RFA was 

deemed to be insignificant in that light. 

The court accordingly granted the motion for an award of the full amount 

requested, $74,725.25. In the order, the court requested the preparation of an amended 

judgment, as will be discussed in part III, post.
25

C. Analysis

We first observe that the briefs on both sides are unhelpful in distinguishing 

between issues that were common to both trials, for which costs of proof were sought. 

Kelomar apparently seeks to relitigate the motion de novo and pays no attention to the 

appellate standard of abuse of discretion (except minimally in the reply brief). In any 

event, this was a postjudgment proceeding and the statute allowed HKE to seek costs of 

proof incurred for each of the trials. The trial court could reasonably conclude that the 

costs of proof incurred at the first trial, when the principal amount of damages was 

established, were recoverable. At the second trial, only a few of the RFAs pertained 

specifically to the interest issues, but the issues remained interrelated.

On appeal, Kelomar points not only to its earlier denials of the RFAs, but also 

argues that only issues before the jury in the second trial should have been compensable as 

costs of proof. It claims the trial court did not adequately account for the previous award 

on the Kelomar cross-complaint (on a different contract), when determining whether it 

was important for Kelomar to admit to owing a principal amount on the 33 invoices. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 431.70 [cross-demands for money can be set off regardless of 

limitations problems].) HKE responds that it was too late for Kelomar to argue the Code 

of Civil Procedure section 431.70 rule (offsets for breaches of different obligations), 

which was not raised in 2008 when the RFAs were served. HKE also claims that Code of 

Civil Procedure section does not apply in the Uniform Commercial Code context, where 

section 2717 governs offsets on breaches of only the same contracts.
26

Having examined the issues covered by the RFAs, we agree with the trial court that 

Kelomar's cross-complaint was no longer an issue requiring any offset calculation, since 

that recovery was already applied to reduce the principal sum due on the 33 invoices. We 

also agree that the difference between HKE's ultimate recovery (approximately $259,000 

before offset) and the amount set forth in the RFAs (approximately $253,000) was 

inconsequential, for purposes of statutory costs of proof. Under the statute, Kelomar had 

the burden of showing that its denials were justified under one of the four exceptions 

listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, subdivision (b), but it could not show 

that the subjects of the RFAs were not substantially important for resolving the case. 

(Garcia, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at pp. 735-736.) It did not show good reason for its

failure to admit, except possibly as to the interest RFAs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, 

subd. (b).) The dispute about the principal amount due on the 33 invoices was essential 

to the determination of the interest issues, having " 'at least some direct relationship to 

one of the central issues in the case.' " (Wimberly, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 634.) Nor 

did the unavailability of incidental or consequential damages under section 2710 (RFA no. 

15, as conceded by HKE) make any significant difference to the costs of proof issues.

The record shows no reasonable ground for Kelomar to issue its blanket denials of 

liability, when it admitted that it had received $250,000 worth of goods as listed in the 33 

invoices. The court had the discretion to conclude that Kelomar did not hold any good 

faith belief that it would prevail on the central issues at trial. (Laabs, supra, 163 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1276; Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 511; Wimberly, supra, 56 

Cal.App.4th 618, 634.)
27

With respect to the trial court's determination that apportionment of fees among the 

various RFAs was not possible, we apply the basic standard that allocation of fees is a 

matter within the court's discretion, and is not required when the issues are " 'so 

interrelated that it would have been impossible to separate them into claims for which 

attorney fees are properly awarded and claims for which they are not.' " (Thompson 

Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 555

[allocation as between fees authorized for some causes of action but not others].) 

Further, allocation between fees awardable to jointly represented parties " 'is not required 

when the liability of the parties is "so factually interrelated that it would have been 

impossible to separate the activities . . . into compensable and noncompensable time 

units." ' " (Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 809, 830.)

In this case, the court's findings set forth a reasonable basis for determining that 

apportionment of fees was not possible, that the subjects of all the RFAs were interrelated 

as to the principal and interest entitlement, each of them was of substantial importance in 

advancing the resolution of the case, and no good reason was shown for the failures to 

admit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (b).) It is not our role to reweigh the 

evidence or relitigate the dispute. We conclude the superior court did not abuse its 

discretion in awarding attorney fees as costs.

III

"FINAL JUDGMENT" ISSUES

Kelomar argues the court had no jurisdiction to enter the "final judgment" dated 

October 15, 2014, and claims that it somehow changed the terms of its earlier judgment 
28

in an unauthorized way. In response, HKE argues nothing erroneous or prejudicial to 

Kelomar's interests occurred when the final judgment incorporated the Code of Civil 

Procedure section 2033.420 costs award into the judgment, even if the manner of entry 

was somewhat unorthodox.

A. Sequence of Events; State of the Record

We again point out that the briefs on both sides are most unhelpful in setting forth 

all of the relevant procedural background concerning the development of the final 

judgment in this case. The record and the face of the final judgment raise issues about a 

related restitution order made by the court February 14, 2014, requiring that HKE 

reimburse Kelomar the amount of interest that was awarded to it by the first jury, 

$195,026.88, pending final resolution at retrial (up from the original $180,672.49, when 

postjudgment interest was added). In June 2014, Kelomar was still arguing to the trial 

court that a portion of the judgment that it had paid should be refunded to it, since the 

previous interest award had been vacated. The parties disputed whether it had to be paid 

before the retrial could proceed, and the court decided at the outset of trial that it was a 

separate issue that could remain in abeyance. The record also shows that the previous net 

judgment amount, including the original interest award, was $412,023.05, with 

postjudgment interest thereon at 10 percent from the date of the first verdict, June 20, 

2011.

After this retrial, the jury rendered its verdict on June 26, 2014, simply awarding 

HKE 1.5 percent interest per month on the subject invoices. The minute order of that 

date further provides that the court accepted the verdict and ordered the clerk to record it 
29

as rendered in favor of HKE, and that, "The clerk shall do the judgment as to this trial. 

Plaintiff's counsel shall prepare an integrated judgment as to both trials." The next day, 

June 27, 2014, the clerk filed and signed a document entitled "Judgment on Verdict,"

although the judge did not sign it. Next, the clerk issued a notice of entry of judgment 

and mailed it to the parties.

The August 5, 2014 minute order for the proceedings on the costs of proof motion 

granted the amounts requested in full, since the court could not readily allocate the 

attorney fees among the various RFAs for which costs were granted and denied. The 

order further stated, "Plaintiff's counsel shall prepare the proposed amended judgment." 

On August 8, 2014, the court signed an order granting the motion to award $75,725.25 

costs of proof, also directing counsel to submit an amended judgment. Other costs were 

added to the judgment, by interlineations, in the amount of $1,505.

On August 15, 2014, counsel for HKE served a notice of entry of order granting 

the postjudgment motion for costs of proof, and Kelomar filed its first notice of appeal.

In September 2014, HKE's attorney submitted to Kelomar's attorney a proposed 

stipulated amended judgment, but no stipulation was reached. Subsequently, HKE 

applied ex parte for an order directing the clerk to enter costs on the clerk's entry of 

judgment form, but Kelomar opposed the motion. The court continued the matter until 

October 9, 2014, after discussing the need for an entry of a single integrated judgment 

with the parties, and receiving opposition and reply papers.

On October 15, 2014, the court signed the "final judgment" which set forth the 

awards rendered in the first trial and documented that the reversal of the award of 
30

prejudgment interest had necessitated a retrial. The judgment states that the second jury 

awarded prejudgment interest to HKE and that the court granted the costs of proof motion 

($74,725.25). The final judgment awards a net amount of damages of $412,023.05 (the 

same as the first verdict), plus interest at the postjudgment rate from July 5, 2011 (the 

first judgment date, not the first verdict date) and an award of prevailing party costs to 

HKE (less the costs on appeal awarded to Kelomar in the previous appeal, for an 

aggregate costs award to HKE of $68,707.46).

Subsequently, Kelomar filed its amended notice of appeal, including the 

postjudgment order as well as the judgment after jury trial.

We note that this final judgment does not on its face reflect whether any portion of 

the damages awarded in the first trial has already been paid by Kelomar. The restitution 

order (concerning the interest award) was held in abeyance. We consider the propriety of 

the final judgment on its face and in light of the record, since HKE admitted to the jury 

that the balance of the $259,120.05 principal owed by Kelomar to it (less Kelomar's 

recovery on its cross-complaint) had been paid to it after the first trial (approximately

$231,000).

B. Authority and Analysis

Judgment in a jury trial must be entered by the clerk within 24 hours after the 

rendition of the verdict, unless the matter is reserved for further consideration or stayed. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.) Following the rendering of the verdict, the court clerk 

attempted to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664, 

which further provides, "In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered."
31

In this case, the trial court attempted to delegate to the clerk the preparation of the 

judgment, as well as the entry of judgment, by merely making an order that accepted the 

verdict. Later, the court conducted the costs proceedings and included in its order that 

the prevailing party was required to prepare an amended judgment. Until the final 

judgment was signed, there was no existing court-issued judgment, only a minute order.

It is a judicial function to render judgment, while entry of the judgment is a 

ministerial act to be performed by the clerk. (Casa De Valley View Owner's Association 

v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1193; 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) 

Judgment, § 44, p. 581; § 55, pp. 590-591.) There shall be only one final judgment in an 

action. (Torres v. City of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222 (Torres).) It is 

well settled that where a " 'judgment is modified merely to add costs, attorney fees and 

interest, the original judgment is not substantially changed and the time to appeal it is 

therefore not affected.' " (Ibid.)

Thus, a separately appealable postjudgment order effectively enforces the 

judgment, but does not change its terms with regard to the substantive resolution of the 

issues of law and fact that were presented to the trial court. (Torres, supra, 154 

Cal.App.4th at p. 222; see Stone v. Regents of University of California (1999) 77 

Cal.App.4th 736, 743-744 [amendment issue regarding the timeliness of an appeal is 

whether a change in the judgment was clerical in nature, or was a "material and 

substantial" change involving an exercise of the judicial function]; CC-California Plaza 

Associates v. Paller & Goldstein (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049 ["we cannot imagine 
32

a more substantial or material change in the form of the judgment than in the identity of 

the losing party"].)

Here, Kelomar has challenged both the underlying judgment and the postjudgment 

costs/attorney fee order, by properly amending its previous notice of appeal. (Torres, 

supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222.) HKE has not challenged the timeliness of Kelomar's 

appeal. Kelomar is attacking the final judgment by arguing that the court lost the power 

to amend the judgment after the verdict was "entered," or actually, accepted by the court 

in the clerk's minute order.

However, as far as we can discern from the record, the minute order and clerical 

notice from the June 26 to 27, 2014 proceedings did not amount to any actual preparation 

of a judgment document for the court to sign, in the exercise of its judicial function. The 

costs motion and other postjudgment proceedings were still going on, and would affect 

the total recovery to be obtained. As of June 2014, a dispute was still going on about 

whether Kelomar was entitled to be reimbursed (as restitution) for some amount of the 

judgment it had already paid while the first appeal was pending.

As of August 2014, after the costs motion, the trial court anticipated and ordered 

that "Plaintiff's counsel shall prepare the proposed amended judgment." (See Torres,

supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 222 [where judgment was modified merely to add costs, 

attorney fees and interest, it is not " 'substantially changed and the time to appeal it is 

therefore not affected' "].) When the costs of proof proceeding took place, there was no 

signed, entered judgment in place, only an accepted verdict.
33

Kelomar never brought an attack on the "judgment" after verdict, such as a motion 

for a new trial, motion to vacate judgment, appeal, or an independent action in equity. 

(See Nestlé Ice Cream Co., LLC v. WCAB (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1109-1110 

[amendment of nonfinal judgment by new trial order or order to vacate, in exercise of 

judicial function or discretion, can amend the judgment and start a new appeal period 

running]; 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Judgment, § 65, p. 600; Craven v. Crout

(1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 779, 782-783.) The parties were unable to stipulate to an 

amended judgment.

Because of the postjudgment nature of the motion for an award of costs of proof, 

the incorporation of that ruling into the final judgment did not amount to any substantial 

modification of the terms of the verdict to be confirmed by a judgment. (Torres, supra, 

154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222; Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(2) [postjudgment attorney 

fees award is separately appealable].) The later costs order did not contain a completely 

different legal basis for resolving the substantive issues presented to the jury at trial. It 

did not impliedly amend or modify the verdict (or the order accepting it) to reflect "a new 

legal ground" for the outcome. (Sanchez v. Strickland (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 758, 764-

767.) "Amended" is a term of art in this context, and Kelomar has no colorable claim 

that the final judgment somehow substantively changed or "amended" any earlier 

"judgment," since the clerk never had the power to make a judicial act of entering 

judgment on the verdict.

The face of the current final judgment appears to adopt the previous net judgment 

amount ($412,023.25), but that net judgment amount does not set forth a calculation of 
34

the dollar amount of the verdict's interest award, or reflect any credits due to Kelomar. 

We may assume from the record that the first verdict's calculation of the interest award of 

$180,672.49 was appropriate. However, we are concerned that the current format of the 

final judgment, showing a net amount due, may inaccurately fail to reflect that some 

payment of the principal amount of the judgment was tendered. Although the parties did 

not address this problem until the reply brief was filed, the record reveals restitution 

concerning interest was still an issue at the outset of trial, although it may have become 

moot.

It is also unclear whether the trial court intended to set the date when interest at the 

postjudgment rate began to run at July 5, 2011 (the first judgment date), when that date 

would properly apply to that award of principal. In light of the proceedings on remand, 

the award of interest dispute was not finally resolved until the time of the second verdict 

and final judgment. We leave those matters and calculations for clarification on remand.

We affirm the final judgment as modified, with directions to the trial court to 

allow the parties to submit forms of proposed amended final judgments, and then to 

execute an amended final judgment that separately sets forth and clarifies the extent of 

the principal and interest amounts remaining payable and subject to execution, as well as 

clarifying the dates that interest began to run, the imposition of costs of proof and the 

other costs. The amended final judgment shall include all essential information that will 

allow the parties to finally resolve all their judgment debtor/creditor issues, if any remain.
35

DISPOSITION

The final judgment is affirmed as to the jury verdict's award of interest, and is 

affirmed as modified as to the balance, with directions to the trial court to prepare an 

amended final judgment that reflects the appropriate calculations of separate and net

amounts of principal, interest, and costs that are still owing, in light of any credits 

properly due to Kelomar for amounts it already paid toward principal or interest. Each 

party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, J.

AARON, J.