Jerrold Klein v. Lisa Bratt (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-JUDGMENT DATED OCTOBER 21, 2010 (# 151.00)

The body of this motion states:  “The Plaintiff, Jerrold Klein (‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Klein’), respectfully moves pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 37-3a et seq. for an award of post-judgment interest of either 9.5% or 10% per annum.”   Although the heading of the motion fails to contain the word interest, court notes that this is a motion for post-judgment interest consistent with the plaintiff's previously filed post-judgment motion dated May 13, 2010 (# 147.00) claiming an award of post-judgment interest in paragraph 1. The court concludes that Klein has filed a motion for post-judgment interest.   Bank of New York v. National Funding, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Complex Litigation Docket Number X01-CV-00-0171525 S (January 21, 2005, Sheedy, J.).

The court issued a Memorandum of Decision on November 25, 2009 (# 139.10) and rendered judgment in favor of Klein, as against the defendant, Lisa Bratt, in the amount $75,711.   The Memorandum of Decision contained charts on pages 23, 24, 25 and 26.   Those charts are in column form and state the nature of each claim, the amount of each claim and the court's findings on each claim.   The court's November 25, 2009 findings in favor of Klein contained two pre-judgment interest components:  (1) “10% interest on $49,000 from 3/17/05-11/25/09 22,996”;  and (2) “6% interest on $6,735 from 1/1/05-11/25/09 1,980.” ($22,996 and $1,980).

Klein is seeking a continuation of interest post-judgment and suggests a blended interest rate of 9.5% on these combined sums or in the alternative, a rate of 10.0% or a rate selected by the trier of fact not to exceed 10% per annum in accordance with Gen.Stat. § 37-3a.  Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 241 Conn. 749, 765-66 (1997).  Gen.Stat. § 37-3a authorizes the award of post-judgment interest.  O'Leary v. Industrial Park Corporation, 211 Conn. 648, 653 (1989).   Case law requires the court to make findings similar to that awarded for pre-judgment interest.  Hartford Steam Boiler Inspections & Insurance Co. v. Underwriters of Lloyds & Cos. Collective, 121 Conn.App. 31, 63-64 (2010).   The allowance of interest as an element of damages ․ is primarily an equitable determination and a matter lying within the discretion of the trial court.”  Id. 63;  Brewer v. D'Onfro, 45 Conn.App. 543, 550 (1997).   Post-judgment interest is discretionary in Connecticut and not mandatory as found in some jurisdictions.   5002 N.Y.C.P.L.R. (“Interest shall be recovered upon the total sum awarded, including interest to verdict, report or decision, in any action, from the date the verdict was rendered or the report or decision was made to the date of entry of final judgment.   The amount of interest shall be computed by the clerk of the court and included in the judgment.”)   Connecticut has a mandatory post-judgment interest statute only for negligence judgments.  Gen.Stat. § 37-3b.

Bratt filed no appeal or post-judgment motions.   The court finds that the post-judgment award sums of $49,000 and $6,735 were wrongfully withheld by Bratt.   The court must now determine the rate of interest and the date when interest accrues.  Cecio Brothers, Inc. v. Five Twenty-One Corporation, 81 Conn.App. 419, 427 (2004).   In its Memorandum of Decision the court found that the $49,000 was wrongfully withheld and awarded pre-judgment interest at 10% from March 17, 2005 to the date of the judgment, November 25, 2009.   The court also found that Bratt admitted at trial that she owed Klein $6,735 for the purchase of furniture and furnishings that she bought around December 2004 in preparation for her vacating the jointly owned home.   The court found that the $6,735 was wrongfully withheld by Bratt and awarded pre-judgment interest at 6% on $6,735 from January 1, 2005 to the date of the judgment, November 25, 2009.   Bratt could have paid the two sums of $49,000 and $6,735 at any time after they were due.   Bratt could have paid those two sums after the November 25, 2009 Memorandum of Decision but failed to do so.

The court finds that the failure to pay the $49,000 and the $6,735 post-judgment is a wrongful withholding by Bratt.   The court finds that interest should accrue post-judgment on those two sums.  “It remains within the court's discretion in light of its factual findings to award interest on any portion of this payment that it determines was wrongfully withheld until payment was made.”  Sosin v. Sosin, 109 Conn.App. 691, 710 (2008).

The court hereby finds that the annual interest rate of 10% on $49,000 and the annual interest rate of 6% on $6,735 computes to a blended rate of 9.51664% on the total of $55,735.   The court hereby orders post-judgment interest on said sums of $49,000 and $6,735 at the rate of 9.5% per annum.   The 9.5% per annum post-judgment interest shall commence on November 26, 2009.

The court entered a judgment in favor of Klein against Bratt in the amount of $75,711 on November 25, 2009.   That judgment was increased to $76,711 after this court issued a Memorandum of Decision of even date herewith on Klein's motion that the court labeled a motion to reargue (# 144.00, # 147,000).   The two sums that the court awarded prejudgment interest, $49,000 and $6,735 were included in the $76,711.   In addition the 10% prejudgment interest on the $49,000 from March 17, 2005 through November 25, 2009 and the 6% prejudgment interest on the $6,735 from January 1, 2005 through November 25, 2009 were included in the $76,711 plaintiff's judgment.   No post-judgment interest will accrue on the two awards of pre-judgment interest since that would be compound interest.   The two sums, $49,000 and $6,795, on which the 9.5% per annum post-judgment interest is awarded, is less than the $76,711 judgment and therefore post-judgment interest on the $49,000 and $6,735 from November 26, 2009 until paid will not be compound interest.

All periodic payments made by Bratt to Klein on the $76,711 judgment and the 9.5% post-judgment interest on the $49,000 and $6,735, shall be first credited as against post-judgment interest and then be credited as against the $49,000 and $6,735.   Post-judgment interest shall continue to accrue at the rate of 9.5% per annum until said sums of $49,000 and $6,735 shall have been paid in full.

The court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the allocation and payment of the judgment and post-judgment interest.

THE COURT

Hon. Kevin Tierney

Judge Trial Referee

Tierney, Kevin, J.T.R.