Court Opinion

ID: 9676177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:16:53.927103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:45.091035
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I agree with the majority opinion except as to the prejudgment interest against which I must respectfully dissent.
The amount was undisputedly liquidated at the time of the filing of the lien. However, the majority now holds the known liened funds to be unliquidated as a result of the various claims and counter-claims asserted by the parties during the course of the litigation.
As the majority concedes, but then misses, the longstanding rule in Kentucky is that prejudgment interest is awarded as a matter of right on a liquidated demand, and is a matter within the discretion of the trial court or jury on unliquidated demands.1 This Court, in Nucor, gave specific examples of liquidated amounts. These include “a bill or note past due, an amount due on an open account, or an unpaid fixed contract price.”2 “In general, ‘liquidated’ means made certain or fixed by agreement of the parties or by operation of law.”3
The amount at issue here was due under the contract and had been fixed — even before the lien (which was invalidated) attached. “[T]he tendency of the courts is to charge and allow interest in accordance with the principles of equity, to accomplish justice in each particular case.” 4
It is evident that the amount at issue here was a liquidated, unpaid fixed contract amount which remained liquidated throughout. Any confusion resulting from the other claims and cross-claims did not render the amount unliquidated. 3D Enterprises should have been entitled to prejudgment interest on the liened amount.
COOPER, J., joins this opinion.

. Nucor Corp. v. General Electric Co., 812 S.W.2d 136, 141 (Ky.1991).

. Id. at 141.

. Id.

.Reliable Mechanical, Inc. v. Naylor Industrial Services, Inc., 125 S.W.3d 856, 858 (Ky.App.2003).