Opinion ID: 863329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Damages and Interest

Text: ¶95. We reverse because the chancery court found that there was no binding contract to provide the $1000 Waddell Scholarship and a waiver of out-of-state tuition. A majority of the court holds that the length of that contract was four years. I find that we should send back for the trial court to determine the reasonable expectations of the parties as to length. ¶96. On the evidence in the record, it would appear that the breach of the agreement would result in damages of $3602 per year, being the extra $3102 paid for out-of-state tuition, and the fact that $500 was paid under the Waddell Scholarship instead of $1000. That would have been the amount of damages for each year. Aronson would be entitled to that amount for any years of the effective contract for which he has already paid tuition, and would be entitled to specific performance of the agreement for any years for which tuition has not yet been paid. ¶97. Aronson seeks attorney's fees, for which there is neither a statutory nor a contractual basis. ¶98. Aronson also sought prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest may be allowed in cases where the amount due is liquidated when the claim is originally made or when the denial of a claim is frivolous or in bad faith. No award of prejudgment interest is allowed where the principal amount has not been fixed prior to judgment. Prejudgment interest is not imposed as a penalty for wrong doing; it is allowed as compensation for the detention of money overdue. For prejudgment interest to be awarded, the party must make a proper demand for the interest in the pleadings, including the date that it was allegedly due. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 730 So.2d 574, 577 (Miss. 1998). Aronson's original complaint sought prejudgment interest. Though no bad faith on the University's part has been asserted or shown, Aronson's claim was liquidated, namely, the specific dollar amount of the unprovided portion of the scholarship. Therefore prejudgment interest at eight per cent could be allowed. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17- 1 (1) (Rev. 2000). The interest rate applicable to the judgment itself, i.e., post-judgment interest, is set by the trial judge if the contract contains no interest rate: All other judgments or decrees shall bear interest at a per annum rate set by the judge hearing the complaint from a date determined by such judge to be fair but in no event prior to the filing of the complaint. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-7 (Rev. 2000). ¶99. I would have the issues regarding interest evaluated by the chancellor during the course of his consideration of the length of this contract. M.R.A.P. 37. McMILLIN, C.J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE OPINION.