Opinion ID: 2595351
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Aldermans have waived all other claims concerning the computation of prejudgment interest.

Text: 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]