Court Opinion

ID: 9775219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:50:32.484467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:23.634943
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The majority opinion cites Grand Fraternity v. Nicosia, 41 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Civ.App. 1931, no writ), for the proposition that the legal rate “was intended for the calculation of simple interest....” The court in that case stated “[t]he statutory rate of 6 percent was provided for the calculation of simple interest. Compound interest is not favored by the courts, 33 C.J.S. 191, but it will be allowed when the equities of the case require it, 33 C.J.S. 252.” Grand Fraternity at 685-86 (emphasis added). I see nothing inequitable in the awarding of annually compounded 6 percent interest when the interest rate set by the market place is substantially much higher.
It should be remembered that the prejudgment interest rate in a condemnation case is not set by statute. The courts have, by analogy only, traditionally set such interest rates at the same level as the legal rates set by statute. Smith v. National Resort Communities, Inc., 585 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.1979). While the legal rate set by Article 5069-1.03 “does not direct” the compounding of interest rates, it does not forbid a trial court from compounding the interest rates.