 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shannon v. Schiller12/9/2003
.This is an appeal by plaintiffs-appellants, Michael T. Shannon and Juming Tong, from a judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, denying appellants' motion for post-judgment interest.
.On April 16, 2001, appellants filed a complaint against defendants-appellees, Lisa Schiller, Peter Schiller and Kristen Gaal, alleging various causes of action, including wrongful death and survivorship claims, following the death of appellant Tong's son, Eric Tong. On April 12, 2002, the trial court filed an entry indicating that counsel for appellants and appellees had informed the court that the case had been settled, and providing notice that the parties had 20 days to prepare an appropriate entry.
.Shortly after the April 12, 2002 entry referencing a settlement, appellee Gaal tendered a check from her insurance carrier in the amount of $40,000 to appellants, but appellants did not cash the check at that time. On April 18, 2002, appellant Tong submitted a letter to the trial court in which Tong stated in part, " t no time did I ever authorize my attorney or anyone to accept or engage in a settlement. I will not accept the settlement." On August 19, 2002, the trial court filed an entry dismissing the matter with prejudice. Further, according to the court's April 14, 2003 entry denying appellants' motion for interest, appellant Shannon, the administrator of decedent's estate, orally informed the court that appellant Tong had not authorized her attorney to settle the case, but that Shannon believed it was in Tong's best interest to ratify the April 12, 2002 settlement.
.In August 2002, counsel for appellants submitted a dismissal entry. The trial court, noting that it had received no further correspondence from appellants Tong or Shannon, executed and filed the dismissal entry of August 19, 2002.
.On March 10, 2003, appellant Shannon filed a motion for "post-judgment interest" (hereafter characterized as "post-settlement interest"). By entry filed April 14, 2003, the trial court denied the motion.
.On appeal, appellants set forth the following single assignment of error for review:
The trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff-appellants post-settlement interest on the forty thousand dollar settlement entered into between the parties on April 12, 2002.
.Under their single assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court erred in failing to award post-settlement interest from April 12, 2002, though May 1, 2003. Appellants argue that such interest is mandated based upon the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Hartmann v. Duffey (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 456.
.R.C. 1343.03 provides in part that, "when money becomes due and payable * * * upon any settlement between parties * * * and upon all judgments * * * of any judicial tribunal for the payment of money arising out of tortious conduct or a contract or other transaction, the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum." In Hartmann, supra, at 459, the court construed R.C. 1343.03 as follows:
* * * The plain language of R.C. 1343.03(A) states that money becomes due and payable "upon any settlement between parties." Thus, from this language, it is clear that the date of settlement is the accrual date for interest to begin to run. At the point of settlement, a settlement debt is created, and plaintiff becomes a creditor entitled to the settlement proceeds. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the lapse of time between accrual of that right (the date of settlement) and payment.
.In its entry denying appellants' motion for post-settlement interest, the trial court f
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|