 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Miller & Miller Accountants11/4/2003
This third appeal on this cause which was tried to a jury in the Richland County Common Pleas Court essentially involves pre- and post-judgment interest but also asserts prejudicial error.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Only a cursory recitation of the facts underlying this appeal are appropriate as such were reviewed in the prior appeals.
Essentially, this action resulted from accounting advice relating to the purchase of a business wherein Appellant as purchaser was not provided accurate financial records and relied on negligent accounting practices.
The result of the last jury verdict in favor of Appellant was reinstated.
Subsequent thereto, Appellant was paid the total verdict of $140,870.60, post-judgment interest of $17,290.03 covering the time from June 14, 2000 through September 5, 2001, and additional post-judgment interest from such September date until the verdict was paid, which was $3666.48.
Appellant moved for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on August 3, 2000.
On January 16, 2002, Appellant filed a motion to tax costs against Appellee.
Such motions were denied and this additional appeal was timely filed.
The six Assignments of Error are:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
"FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST UNDER COMMON LAW.
"SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST UNDER R.C. 1343.03(A):
"THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST UNDER 1343.03(C):
"FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST ON PREJUDGMENT INTEREST.
"FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NECESSARY EXPENSES TO BE TAXED AS COSTS.
"SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN CONDUCTING AN EX PARTE CONFERENCE WITH APPELLEE'S COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND TO REQUEST COUNSEL PREPARE AN OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND THE LOCAL RULES."
I, II, and III
The concept of common law pre-judgment interest as asserted in the First Assignment is not disputed by either party to this appeal although the applicability thereof, of course, is not agreed. Notwithstanding such agreement as to the common law as to prejudgment interest, a closer scrutiny is warranted, especially when considering the effect, if any, on such concept of R.C. 1343.01, et seq. If such statutes are in derogation of the common law, they must, of course, be strictly construed.
Leading Ohio cases on such interest are cited in both briefs and such interest is succinctly quoted in Miller v. Gunckle (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 359:
"Ohio courts have long recognized the common-law right to prejudgment interest Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 638, 656-657, 635 N.E.2d 331, (citing cases dating to 1832). It is well established that the underpinning of prejudgment interest awards is to encourage prompt settlement of claims, prevent prolonged litigation, and to compensate and make the injured party whole. Royal Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Ohio State Univ. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 110, 116- 117, 652 N.E.2d 687."
Moskovitz is a tort case based on medical malpractice wh
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|