Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Gulfport's Motion to Recover Excess Interest.

Text: ¶ 90. Following Dedeaux I, Gulfport filed a Motion to Recover Excess Interest, arguing that, because this Court reversed the [c]ourt's order requiring the interest to be compounded[,] Gulfport is entitled to have a judgment entered against Dedeaux for the excess interest paid to Dedeaux along with interest on that amount at the rate of 8% simple interest until paid.  See Dedeaux I, 938 So.2d at 846 (emphasis added). At the subsequent motion hearing, counsel for Gulfport contended that [w]e paid them that $700,000. They had it all this time. They've used it, they've earned interest on it. I think it's only fair ... that [Gulfport] be paid interest on that amount from the date it was paid[,] ... something like December 14, 2004. The trial court granted Gulfport recovery of the $698,604.86 in compounded interest, but denied Gulfport's request for interest on the overpayment to Dedeaux.... According to the trial court's order: there are no applicable cases ruling on the overpayment of interest after trial[,]... the Supreme Court [in Dedeaux I ] only required the return of the overpayment by [Gulfport] and does not require the payment of interest for the period of time that [Dedeaux] had the interest pursuant to the prior [o]rder of the [c]ourt. ¶ 91. On appeal, Gulfport contends that fairness dictates that the return of $698,604.86 in compounded interest is a judgment ... to which [Mississippi Code Section] 75-17-7 is applicable. Dedeaux responds that Section 75-17-7 is inapplicable to this eminent domain action, as [n]othing in the eminent domain statutory scheme allows interest to be awarded to the condemnor. Moreover, Dedeaux maintains that even if Section 75-17-7 were applicable, there has been no `judgment' for which interest can be awarded pursuant to that statute. ¶ 92. The standard of review for the grant or denial of interest remedies is abuse of discretion. See Cash Distributing Co., Inc. v. Neely, 947 So.2d 317, 326 (Miss.Ct.App.2006). Dedeaux I specifically stated that Section 75-17-7 did not apply to eminent-domain judgments [b]ecause the eminent domain statutory scheme has a specific provision for interest on eminent domain judgments in Section 11-27-19. Dedeaux I, 938 So.2d at 846. Section 11-27-19 provides only that [a]ny judgment finally entered in payment for property to be taken shall provide legal interest on the award of the jury from the date of the filing of the complaint until payment is actually made.... Miss.Code Ann. § 11-27-19 (Rev.2004) (emphasis added). This provision is clearly inapplicable to Gulfport's request for interest on the overpayment. Therefore, this Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gulfport's Motion to Recover Excess Interest, insofar as Gulfport sought interest on the overpayment.