Opinion ID: 1771061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in awarding prejudgment interest against the appellants?

Text: The chancellor awarded the plaintiffs, Bell and Gold, interest at a rate of 10% from 2-15-80 until the trial date. The court reasoned that on 2-15-80 Gold's funds retired the indebtedness that existed on the Barber property. The appellant argues that prejudgment interest is improper because the damages are not based upon any contract nor for any liquidated sum and that 8% is an was the legal rate of interest, making a 10% improper. An award of prejudgment interest rests in the discretion of the awarding judge. (Cites omitted) Under Mississippi law prejudgment interest may be allowed in cases where the amount due is liquidated when the claim is originally made, or where the denial of the claim is frivolous or in bad faith. (Cites omitted) Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Doleac Electric Co., 471 So.2d 325, 331 (Miss. 1985.) While the appellant correctly points out that legal rate of interest on notes is 8%, see Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-1 (Supp. 1985), the judge awarded the 10% interest based upon the rate agreed to by the parties. Bell loaned Gold money at 10% interest for Barber's benefit. The judge found that Barber and LaBarre knew of and agreed to this indirect loan to enable Barber to avoid the wrath of his creditors. Thus, the chancellor correctly awarded 10% interest until the time of trial and 8% legal interest from the time he entered judgment. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.