Opinion ID: 1995480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: callie bryant's appeal

Text: Callie Bryant challenges the trial court's deduction of statutory interest purportedly accruing on the settlement funds paid by the settling banks from the total amount assessed against Young. We affirm the trial court. The trial court's calculation of damages was as follows: $496,566.17 . . . . . (full amount of drafts) Less: 106,886.41 . . . . . (amount of Girard's Mortgage) ___________ $389,679.76 Less: 49,656.62 . . . . . (amount of Young's fee) ___________ $340,023.14 Less: 127,778.00 . . . . . (amount of settlements) ___________ $212,245.14 Plus: 89,142.97 . . . . . (interest from 1/1/78-11/1/85 ___________ $301,388.11 at 6% on above amount) Less: 26,172.27 . . . . . (credit for interest at 6% ___________ $275,215.84 on settlement from respective dates of settlement [with defendant banks] until 11/1/85) Callie Bryant would assign error on the basis of the final deduction of $26,172.27, arguing that the deduction is illogical and unjust in that it penalizes her for having settled with the banks. We disagree. Interest is the compensation allowed by law . . . for the deprivation of money. When there is no such deprivation, no interest can be awarded.  Schleeter v. Intrieri, 326 Pa.Super. 233, 235, 473 A.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1984) (Emphasis added). In the instant case, Callie Bryant was not deprived of the amounts received in settlement with the banks in that she received these monies several months prior to entry of judgment in her favor. The trial court correctly adjusted the total award to reflect the fact that she had the use of these monies during that period of time. We find no abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED.