Seca v. Snow, Atticks & Hollo LLC
Absent evidence of a wrongful delay in payment of a court-ordered judgment, a court may elect not to award postjudgment interest. In 2010, the Superior Court awarded the plaintiffs, Margaret and Michael Seca, damages against the defendant limited liability company in the amount of $208,055. In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for postjudgment interest. Connecticut General Statutes §37-3a provides, "[I]nterest at the rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, may be recovered and allowed in civil actions . . . as damages for the detention of money after it becomes payable." The Connecticut Appellate Court wrote in a 2003 decision, Advanced Financial Services Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services Inc., "Before awarding interest [under §37-3a], the trial court must ascertain whether [the party against whom interest is sought] has wrongfully detained money damages." The Superior Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish they were entitled to interest. The plaintiffs failed to submit evidence that the defendant did not pay the court-awarded judgment or that the defendants wrongfully delayed in paying. The court added, "[T]he court needs further explanation regarding why the plaintiffs are only now seeking an award of postjudgment interest when judgment was entered in June 2010." The court denied the plaintiffs' motion.