Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-17-204,CV-17-204 |
| Citation | 2017 Ark. App. 553 |
| Parties | REGINA WILSON APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS AND ARKANSAS GOVERNOR'S DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COUNCIL APPELLEES |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION
AFFIRMED
Regina Wilson appeals the circuit court's order finding that she was entitled to interest on her award of attorney's fees from the date of the attorney's-fees judgment, not the date of the jury verdict in her favor. We affirm the circuit court.
Wilson sought damages for violation of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, and in November 2015, a jury awarded her $127,000. On 3 December 2015, the circuit court entered a judgment on the jury verdict in the amount of $127,000 "plus attorney's fees, if any, and costs under Rule 54, all of which to bear interest in the amount of 10% until paid." On December 30, Wilson applied for attorney's fees in the amount of $214,305 and costs in the amount of $19,987.49. The defendants, the State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Governor's Developmental Disabilities Council (collectively "the State"), responded that the fee request was excessive and not reasonable.
On 22 April 2016, the circuit court awarded $201,250 in attorney's fees and $3,009.81 in costs. On June 23, Wilson filed a partial satisfaction of judgment, noting that the State had paid her $341,213.39, which satisfied the principal and interest due on the jury verdict, the principal amount of attorney's fees and costs awarded, and the interest accruing on the attorney's fees and costs from 22 April 2016 to 22 June 2016. What remained, however, was a dispute over whether interest on the attorney's fees and costs should be calculated from the date of the judgment on the jury verdict or the date the fees and costs were quantified.
Wilson argued that interest should be calculated from the date of the judgment on the jury verdict, and while acknowledging that it was not directly on point, cited Mothershead v. Douglas, 221 Ark. 756, 255 S.W.2d 953 (1953), in support. In that case, our supreme court held that when a judgment is affirmed as modified on appeal, the postjudgment interest accrues from the date of the original judgment. The State asserted that interest does not accrue until the judgment amount is fixed by a final order, thus Wilson was not entitled to interest on the attorney's-fees award for the time between the December 2015 judgment and the April 2016 order awarding attorney's fees. Accordingly, the State moved for entry of a full satisfaction of judgment.
On 21 November 2016, the circuit court found that the relevant judgment for purposes of determining when interest begins to run is the judgment establishing the right to fees or costs and that interest does not accrue until the judgment amount is fixed by final order. The attorney's-fees amount was not fixed by order until 22 April 2016; therefore, interest should be calculated from that date. The court found that the State had satisfied thejudgments as to the principal and interest and granted the State's motion to compel satisfaction of judgment. Wilson now appeals this order.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-1-605(5) (Repl. 2016) provides that a plaintiff may be awarded "reasonable court costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial