Opinion ID: 2545968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prejudgment Accrued Interest

Text: Paragraph 3 of the final judgment states: [The plaintiffs] are further entitled to, and do hereby recover from, the Defendant, Advanced Realty Co., Inc., the sum of $52,325.25 in compensatory damages, based upon the reasonable rental value of the property at issue, plus $850.00 cash [per] month plus accrued interest from March 2003 to June 1, 2004. The plaintiffs concede in their reply brief to this Court that the trial court's award of $52,325.25 in compensatory damages against Advanced Realty included prejudgment interest. However, they argue that they are entitled to an additional award of prejudgment interest on that part of the judgment against Advanced Realty awarding rental value of the property of $850 per month from March 2003 through June 1, 2004. We agree. The plaintiffs state the following in their reply brief: First, [the trial court] clearly did award prejudgment interest in both the portion of the final judgment that actually calculated monetary damages ($52,325.25) as well as that portion of the [final judgment] that did not calculate the damage[s] figure (`... plus $850 cash [per] month plus accrued interest from March 2003 to June 1, 2004'). As argued in the Trial Court, it is clear that the sum of $52,325.25 included prejudgment interest. That is clear from plaintiffs' Exhibit 19 which makes clear [they] sought damages in the amount of $850 per month from September of 1998 and that they also sought prejudgment interest on that sum. Accordingly, if the [trial court] had somehow disregarded the interest element set forth in Exhibit 19, the maximum amount of compensatory damages that could have been awarded in the `calculated' portion of its final judgment (i.e., from September 1998 through February 2003) would have been $41,900 ($850 × 54-$4,000[ [6] ] = $41,900). The question then becomes, in light of the Trial Court's award of prejudgment interest for the period of time from September 1998 through February 2003, would the Court not also award prejudgment on the `reasonable rental damages' from March 2003 to June 2004? Fortunately, this is not a question we need to grapple with because the [trial court] expressly awarded prejudgment interest for that period of time when it stated in the final judgment that [the plaintiffs] were due `plus $850 cash [per] month plus accrued interest from March 2003 to June 1, 2004.' (Plaintiffs' reply brief, at 10-11.) Rule 53, Ala. R.App. P., which grants this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals the authority to affirm a judgment or an order without an opinion, provides as follows in subsection (d): An order of affirmance issued by the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals by which a judgment or order is affirmed without an opinion ... shall have no precedential value ... and shall not be used by any court within this state, except for the purpose of establishing the application of the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, or procedural bar. This Court has stated: `Under the doctrine of the `law of the case,' whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case. Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala.1987). See also Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701 (Ala.1996). It is well established that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the `law of the case,' and that the trial court must comply with the appellate court's mandate. Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala.1989).' Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc., 913 So.2d 441, 445 (Ala.2005) (quoting Southern United Fire Ins. Co. v. Purma, 792 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Ala.2001)). In the final judgment, the trial court expressly awarded the plaintiffs $850.00 cash [per] month plus accrued interest from March 2003 to June 1, 2004. Regions Bank and Advanced Realty appealed this judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals; that court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, without an opinion. Regions Bank and Advanced Realty then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari contending that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's judgment based on its finding that they were not bona fide purchasers of the property in question and that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence concerning the priority of the mortgages that allegedly contradicted the terms of a purchase and sale agreement. Although this Court's action has no bearing on the law of the case, this Court initially granted the petition for a writ of certiorari but later quashed it. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court's award of $850.00 cash [per] month plus accrued interest from March 2003 to June 1, 2004, to the plaintiffs has become the law of the case and that the plaintiffs are entitled to an interest award from Advanced Realty [7] on $850 per month from March 1, 2003, through June 1, 2004.