Opinion ID: 1796752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the trial court correctly denied prejudgment interest

Text: As to the appellee's cross-appeal, the trial court denied Wallace pre-judgment interest on the breach of contract. Wallace asserts that he was entitled to prejudgment interest, as the unpaid amounts of money under the contract constituted liquidated damages payable when the lawsuit commenced. Prejudgment interest arises only where the amount owed is liquidated, or denial of the amount owed is in bad faith. Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 564 So.2d 1374, 1380 (Miss. 1990). As to whether a claim is liquidated, interest has been denied where `there is a bona fide dispute as to the amount of damages as well as the responsibility for the liability therefor.' Id. (citation omitted). The plaintiff must make a proper demand or request for prejudgment interest, including from when it is allegedly due, in the pleadings. Id. (citation omitted). The request for interest from and after the due dates of October 31, November 30, December 31, 1988 and January 31, 1989 was properly included in Wallace's complaint. The remaining question is whether the amount due Wallace was liquidated when he originally made his claim. The complaint alleged, and Thompson admitted in its answer, that Wallace was to receive the sum of $8,334 per month for six months. Further, there is no question that Wallace received the amounts for two months, but never received the final four months' payment. This constitutes a liquidated claim, and as such, the trial court erred in not allowing prejudgment interest.