Opinion ID: 901137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Pre and Post-judgment Interest

Text: [¶ 19.] Pursuant to SDCL 21-1-13.1, [a]ny person who is entitled to recover damages ... is entitled to recover interest thereon from the day that the loss or damage occurred[.] The defendants argue that City is not entitled to prejudgment interest because it cannot be obtained if damages remain uncertain until determined by the court. See SDCL 21-1-11. However, the adoption of SDCL 21-1-13.1 in 1990 abrogated the rule that prejudgment interest cannot be obtained if damages remain uncertain until determined by a court. Fritzel v. Roy Johnson Const., 1999 SD 59, ¶ 12, 594 N.W.2d 336, 339. Under the present rule in SDCL 21-1-13.1, prejudgment interest is allowed from the day the loss or damage occurred regardless of whether the damages are certain. Id. [¶ 20.] The trial court erred in its determination that no interest should be allowed based on this Court's holding in Carlson, 75 S.D. at 438, 67 N.W.2d at 152. The trial court failed to recognize that after that 1954 case, South Dakota adopted SDCL 21-1-13.1 which makes prejudgment interest mandatory. Therefore, City is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date the void contract was entered into, May 30, 1995. [7] [¶ 21.] City is also entitled to post-judgment interest on the award. SDCL 15-16-3 states that [w]hen a judgment is for the recovery of money, interest from the time of the verdict or decision until judgment be finally entered must be added to the judgment of the party entitled thereto. Therefore, City is entitled to interest for the time between December 19, 2001, when the verdict was rendered, until February 20, 2002, when the judgment was satisfied. [¶ 22.] The trial court erred in refusing to allow an award of interest.