Opinion ID: 1259865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CERTAINTY REQUIREMENTS OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 3287, SUBDIVISION (a)

Text: Plaintiffs base their claims to interest on Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a). It provides: Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. This section is applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any such debtor, including the state or any county, city, city and county, municipal corporation, public district, public agency, or any political subdivision of the state. (9) Amounts recoverable as wrongfully withheld payments of salary or pensions are damages within the meaning of these provisions. ( Sanders v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.3d 252, 262-263 [90 Cal. Rptr. 169, 475 P.2d 201]; Benson v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 60 Cal.2d 355, 365-366 [33 Cal. Rptr. 257, 384 P.2d 649]; see also Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 17 Cal.3d 671, 681-683 [131 Cal. Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749].) Interest is recoverable on each salary or pension payment from the date it fell due. ( Mass v. Board of Education (1964) 61 Cal.2d 612, 624-625 [39 Cal. Rptr. 739, 394 P.2d 579].) (10a) Defendants contend that plaintiffs' salary and pension claims were not damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a)). They argue that until Olson v. Cory I was filed in its final form, there was uncertainty over (1) the identity of the judges and pensioners entitled to back salary and pension payments and (2) the amounts of each of those payments. (11) Generally, the certainty required of Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a), is absent when the amounts due turn on disputed facts, but not when the dispute is confined to the rules governing liability. ( Esgro Central, Inc. v. General Ins. Co. (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 1054, 1060-1063 [98 Cal. Rptr. 153]; McConnell v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1962) 205 Cal. App.2d 469, 477-480 [24 Cal. Rptr. 5].) (10b) Here, the amount due each member of the plaintiff class  judges of courts of record and judicial pensioners  at any point in time between January 1, 1977, and June 27, 1980 (when Olson v. Cory I became final) was either of two readily calculable amounts: (1) the salary or pension due under section 68203 as it read before the 1976 amendment or (2) that due under the section as amended. The question whether to pay any judge or pensioner under one version of the statute or the other did not depend on any factual uncertainty or dispute but solely on the proper answers to the questions of law ultimately resolved in Olson v. Cory I. Uncertainty over those legal issues did not prevent the amounts due from being certain or capable of being made certain by calculation (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a)).