Morin v. Aba Recovery Service, Inc.
Decision Date | 30 September 1987 |
Citation | 195 Cal.App.3d 200,240 Cal.Rptr. 509 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Real A. MORIN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ABA RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. D004512. |
Singleton & Ronquillo, Terry Singleton and David Ronquillo, Escondido, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, Michael L. Lipman, Paul E. Pierce, Jr., Sullivan, Duvall & Noya and Ronald W. Noya, San Diego, for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiffs Real and Shirley Morin (Morin) appeal an order denying their request for prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3291 against defendants ABA Recovery Service, Inc., Richard Egley and Henry Rose. Morin contends section 3291 mandates an award of interest. Although we find section 3291's language to be mandatory,
on this record we are unable to determine whether Morin is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. We thus reverse the order and remand the matter to the superior court for further proceedings.
In August 1980 Morin sued defendants for wrongfully repossessing Morin's trailer, alleging causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and possession of personal property. Morin sought compensatory damages according to proof and $15,000 punitive damages. In September 1980 defendants answered Morin's complaint.
In December 1983 Morin served defendants with an offer to settle for $24,000 under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Defendants allowed Morin's offer to expire.
In March 1984 the matter was arbitrated. The arbitrator awarded Morin $75,000. Defendants rejected the arbitrator's award and sought a trial de novo.
In June 1985 defendants offered Morin $40,000 under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. Morin did not accept defendants' offer.
In September 1985 Morin filed an amended complaint for possession of personal property, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence.
In September 1985 jury trial began. After Morin rested, defendants offered Morin $72,000 plus an additional $10,000 over time. Morin declined. The matter went to the jury. In November 1985 the court entered $67,500 judgment on general verdict favoring Morin, including $27,500 compensatory damages and $40,000 punitive damages.
Morin filed a cost memorandum seeking prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3291. After hearing, the court denied Morin's request for prejudgment interest. The court stated it believed it had "... discretion to deny prejudgment interest otherwise awardable under CC 3291." Morin appeals the order denying prejudgment interest.
Code of Civil Procedure section 998 provides in relevant part:
Civil Code section 3291 provides in relevant part:
Morin contends the court erred in denying prejudgment interest, asserting Civil Code section 3291 mandated an award of such interest here.
(Hogya v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 122, 132-133, 142 Cal.Rptr. 325.)
On its face Civil Code section 3291 appears to impose upon the court a mandatory obligation to award prejudgment interest where the statutory conditions are met. The words of the statute providing the judgment "shall" bear 10 percent prejudgment interest are reasonably clear. Generally the word "shall" connotes a mandatory obligation. (Hogya v. Superior Court, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d at p. 133, 142 Cal.Rptr. 325.) The Legislature is aware of this distinction and used "shall" in section 3291. This ordinary meaning of "shall" supports Morin's interpretation of the statute. Nothing in the language of section 3291 suggests its word "shall" should be construed as other than mandatory. If the Legislature intended trial courts to have discretion to deny prejudgment interest, the Legislature should have used the word "may" instead of "shall." (Ibid.)
However, as defendants correctly note, a statute's use of the word "shall" does not always mean its provisions are mandatory. "Shall" has sometimes been judicially construed as directory or permissive. (Governing Board v. Felt (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-163, 127 Cal.Rptr. 381.)
" "... " (Hogya v Superior Court, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d at p. 134, 142 Cal.Rptr. 325, citing People v. Municipal Court (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 767, 775, 303 P.2d 375.)
Thus, whether the word "shall" is to be construed as mandatory or merely permissive depends on the legislative intent. (Nasser v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 52, 58, 202 Cal.Rptr. 552.)
Defendants contend the Legislature could not have intended to allow prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3291 where the plaintiff's conduct during settlement negotiations was unreasonable, inequitable or in bad faith. However, defendants point to nothing in section 3291's legislative history suggesting the Legislature intended an award of prejudgment interest to be merely discretionary. On the contrary, the available legislative history leads to the conclusion the statute's language is, indeed, mandatory. The manifest purpose of section 3291 is to encourage settlement. (Ops.Cal.Legis.Counsel, No. 17984 (Nov. 2, 1982) Judgment and Prejudgment Interest; accord, Woodard v. Southern Cal. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 656, 666, 217 Cal.Rptr. 514; Gutierrez v. State Ranch Services (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 83, 88, 198 Cal.Rptr. 16.) Section 3291 "... substantially increases the stakes for a defendant faced with a pretrial offer to settle [under Code of Civil Procedure section 998]." (Id. at p. 88, fn. 7, 198 Cal.Rptr. 16.) Construing section 3291 as granting the trial court discretion to deny prejudgment interest would impair the very purpose of the statute's enactment. (Cf. People v. Municipal Court, supra, 145 Cal.App.2d at p. 775, 303 P.2d 375.) Interpreting the statute as mandatory furthers the legislative intent to encourage settlements. 1
Construing Civil Code section 3291 as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc.
...under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and the plaintiff then obtains a more favorable judgment. (Morin v. ABA Recovery Service, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 200, 207, 240 Cal.Rptr. 509.) Interest runs from the date of the plaintiff's first offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 w......
-
Gourley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...inapplicable to contractual disputes, business-tort losses and arbitration proceedings. (See Morin v. ABA Recovery Service, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 200, 206-207, at fn. 1, 240 Cal.Rptr. 509; accord, Woodard v. Southern Cal. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 656, 665-668, 217......
-
Judah v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...constituted an award for "personal injury." She also claims the court misinterpreted the holding in Morin v. ABA Recovery Service, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 200, 240 Cal.Rptr. 509, and held that the total recovery to which section 3291 prejudgment interest could apply was the $15,000 compe......
-
McKinney v. Cal. Portland Cement Co.
...personal injury plaintiffs are likely to be physically as well as monetarily impaired." (Morin v. ABA Recovery Service, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 200, 206, fn. 1, 240 Cal.Rptr. 509.)13 The background of the statute indicates a concern with differentiating broadly between property damage an......