Opinion ID: 1436870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interest on money judgment

Text: The trial court awarded to Mitzi the fair market value of Ann's jewelry and furs and her interest in the home and furnishings, together with 7 percent interest on those amounts from the date of Sam's death. Defendants maintain that since the value of the foregoing property was in dispute throughout the trial, Mitzi's damages were unliquidated and an award of prejudgment interest was improper. (See former Civ. Code, § 3287; Caplan v. Schroeder, 56 Cal.2d 515, 521 [15 Cal. Rptr. 145, 364 P.2d 321].) As Mitzi points out, however, her cause of action was not based upon simple breach of contract but arose out of Sam's violation of his confidential relationship with Ann by his failure to perform his part of their agreement after having benefited from Ann's performance. (16) Such a violation of a confidential relationship constitutes constructive fraud and where, as here, unjust enrichment results a constructive trust may be imposed. [Citations.] ( Day v. Green, supra, 59 Cal.2d 404, 411.) Since Mitzi has proceeded on the theory of constructive fraud, she is entitled to the benefit of Civil Code section 3288, which provides that In an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the jury. (17) Under the cases, the trial court may award prejudgment interest under section 3288 whether or not plaintiff's damages are liquidated. (See Estate of Piercy, 168 Cal. 755, 758 [145 P. 91]; Tevis v. Beigel, 174 Cal. App.2d 90, 101 [344 P.2d 360]; Katz v. Enos, 68 Cal. App.2d 266, 278-279 [156 P.2d 461]; see also Civ. Code, § 2237; Bass v. Youngblood, 221 Cal. App.2d 278, 289 [34 Cal. Rptr. 326]; Nathanson v. Murphy, 147 Cal. App.2d 462, 466-467 [305 P.2d 710]; Brunson v. Babb, 145 Cal. App.2d 214, 230 [302 P.2d 647]; West v. Stainback, 108 Cal. App.2d 806, 819 [240 P.2d 366].) (18) Since Sam had promised to turn over Ann's property to Mitzi upon his death, and since his failure to do so constituted constructive fraud, the trial court had discretion under section 3288 to award Mitzi interest from the date upon which the fraud occurred.