Morgan v. Smith

88 Va. Cir. 27, 2013 Va. Cir. LEXIS 146
CourtRichmond County Circuit Court
DecidedOctober 16, 2013
DocketCase No. CL11-04
StatusPublished

This text of 88 Va. Cir. 27 (Morgan v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Richmond County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morgan v. Smith, 88 Va. Cir. 27, 2013 Va. Cir. LEXIS 146 (Va. Super. Ct. 2013).

Opinion

By Judge Harry T. Taliaferro, III

I have received and reviewed the letters of counsel regarding Mr. Bugg’s request that this Court award pre-judgment interest on the $21,000 principal amount that the Court awarded the Smiths on their counterclaim against Morgan at the trial heard on August 7, 2013. The Smiths prayed for a principal judgment of $41,600 with “interest on the foregoing amount at a rate and from a date deemed appropriate by the finder of fact, and for their costs as provided by law.” Pursuant to § 8.01-382 the Court may provide for interest on any principal sum awarded and fix the period at which the interest shall commence.

The statute has been interpreted to mean that an award of pre-judgment interest lies within the sound discretion of the Court and that its purpose is to compensate the plaintiff who, for an extended time, has been without relief. The Court will not here reiterate the details of this case other than to note that, as with practically every construction case, determining the judgment required the Court to consider numerous acts for which liability was claimed and for which damages were sought.

Upon consideration, the Court awards pre-judgment interest on the judgment from October 29, 2010, at the legal rate prescribed in § .6.2-301(A), plus court costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 Va. Cir. 27, 2013 Va. Cir. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-smith-vaccrichmondcty-2013.