Court Opinion

ID: 9695876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:46.897616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.041568
License: Public Domain

GARTZKE, J.
(concurring). The problem is that secs. 628.46(1) and 807.01(4), Stats., fail to provide that one does not apply if the other does. The majority attempts to solve the problem by holding that interest *16stops running under sec. 628.46(1) as of the date of the settlement offer made pursuant to sec. 807.01(4). The attempt fails. Section 628.46(1) provides that interest runs on an overdue claim until one of two alternative dates: "the date a draft or other valid instrument which is equivalent to payment was placed in the U.S. mail in a properly addressed, postpaid envelope, or, if not so posted, on the date of delivery." The statute contains no room for a third date.
My analysis is different but reaches the same result. The legislature usually does not provide for double compensation except to punish. Sections 628.46(1) and 807.01(4), Stats., have a common purpose: to compensate persons when their use of money to which they are entitled has been withheld. Because neither statute reflects a punitive purpose, we should infer that the legislature does not intend compensation under both. We should apply the statute which most completely compensates the plaintiff. In this case, that means that sec. 628.46(1) applies from March 20, 1985 to the date the defendant puts the check in the mail or delivers it, and sec. 807.01(4) does not apply.