Dursteler v. Dursteler
112 Idaho 594, 733 P.2d 815, 1987 Ida. App. LEXIS 361 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a monetary judgment is modified downward on appeal without being reversed, postjudgment interest on the modified amount accrues from the date of the original trial court judgment. A court may use a motion under Rule 60(a) to correct a subsequent judgment that omits this mandatory interest, as such an omission constitutes a correctable error arising from oversight.
Facts:
- Michael and Mary Dursteler (sellers) entered into an agreement to sell a ranch to Dennis and Gloria Dursteler (buyers).
- The buyers, Dennis and Gloria, made payments to the sellers as part of the transaction.
- The underlying contract for the sale of the ranch was subsequently determined to be incomplete and unenforceable.
- As a result of the failed transaction, the buyers sought restitution for the money they had paid to the sellers.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis and Gloria Dursteler (buyers) sued Michael and Mary Dursteler (sellers) in Idaho district court for restitution following an unenforceable contract.
- On March 5, 1982, the district court entered an initial judgment for the buyers for $14,702.85, which provided for postjudgment interest to accrue from that date.
- The sellers appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
- In the first appeal (Dursteler I), the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's liability determination but modified the award downward and remanded for potential further adjustments.
- On remand, the district court entered a new judgment for the buyers for $8,928.34 but the judgment was silent on the accrual date for postjudgment interest.
- The buyers filed a motion under I.R.C.P. 60(a) to correct the judgment to specify that interest would run from the original March 5, 1982 judgment date.
- The district court granted the motion and entered a 'corrected judgment.'
- The sellers, as appellants, appealed the corrected judgment to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When an appellate court modifies a monetary judgment downward and remands, does postjudgment interest on the new amount run from the date of the original judgment, and may a trial court use a Rule 60(a) motion to correct an omission of such interest in its judgment after remand?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, Chief Judge.
Yes, when an appellate court modifies a monetary judgment downward, interest on the new amount runs from the date of the original judgment, and a Rule 60(a) motion is an appropriate vehicle to correct a judgment that omits such mandatory interest. The court distinguished between a judgment that is 'modified' and one that is 'reversed.' A modification, which occurred here, leaves the original judgment intact but alters the amount, so interest accrues from the original entry date. In contrast, a reversal vacates the judgment, and interest on any new award would run only from the date of the new judgment. The sellers' argument that the sum was 'unliquidated' is irrelevant to postjudgment interest, which is mandated by statute. Furthermore, the omission of this mandatory interest in the judgment on remand was an 'oversight' correctable under I.R.C.P. 60(a), which is designed to make a judgment reflect what the law requires, not to effect a substantive change.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction in Idaho law between modifying and reversing a judgment for the purpose of calculating postjudgment interest. It establishes that a party's right to postjudgment interest vests at the time of the original judgment and is not reset by an appellate modification of the award amount. The ruling also clarifies the scope of Rule 60(a), confirming that it can be used to correct omissions of mandatory, non-discretionary legal requirements like statutory interest, thereby providing a streamlined procedural remedy for such errors.
