Opinion ID: 2595351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Superior Court Correctly Calculated Prejudgment Interest.

Text: The superior court awarded Iditarod prejudgment interest at a rate of 10.5% per annum to accrue from August 1, 1997, but excluding the period during which Iditarod was in possession of the judgment for unpaid rent. The right to prejudgment interest in an action for breach of contract accrues from the date of contractual breach. [47] The purpose of awarding prejudgment interest is to `compensate [a] plaintiff for the loss of use of the money from the date of injury until the date of judgment.' [48] The Aldermans argue that the court's award of prejudgment interest gave Iditarod a double recovery and that Iditarod's right to interest accrued after August 1, 1997, claims which, if true, would both reduce the amount of interest owed as well as change the rate at which interest would be calculated. [49] For the following reasons, we reject these arguments and affirm the award of prejudgment interest.
The Aldermans argue that Judge Christen's award of prejudgment interest for the period of August 1, 1997 to May 10, 2000 granted Iditarod a double recovery because the Aldermans had already paid prejudgment interest for that period in accordance with Judge Shortell's order. The Aldermans correctly argue that prejudgment interest may not be awarded to the extent that it would give the plaintiff a double recovery. [50] However, Judge Christen correctly credited the Aldermans not only with the amount paid on the earlier judgment, but also the interest that they paid on the judgment. In addition, the Aldermans did not have to pay interest during the period of time that Iditarod had possession of the judgment. Thus, Iditarod did not receive a double recovery.
The Aldermans also argue that the superior court erred in ruling that Iditarod was entitled to receive prejudgment interest beginning on August 1, 1997. The Aldermans raise this issue for the first time on appeal. Absent plain error, we generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. [51] We may make exceptions for issues that are (1) not dependent on any new or controverted facts, (2) closely related to the appellant's trial court arguments; and (3) could have been gleaned from the pleadings. [52] Because the Aldermans' claim rests on a controverted fact  the date on which the cause of action accrued  and because there was no plain error in calculating the date from which prejudgment interest accrued, this argument has been waived. Finally, the Aldermans' argument that a different statutory rate of interest applies, an issue raised in the Aldermans' points on appeal but not argued before the trial court or in their opening brief before this court, is deemed abandoned. [53]