Interest, Judgment Enforcement: Reversal Of Judgment And Remand, Which Really Was An Upward Modification, Required That Interest On The Attorney’s Fees Award Should Run From The Date Of Original Judgment

Substance Of The Order Was Determinative.

            In Pacifica Companies LLC v. Patel, Case No. D074358 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA in an earlier decision reversed a trial judge order denying a request for contractual attorney’s fees based upon a letter of intent agreement, remanding so that the trial judge could enter an award of reasonable prejudgment attorney’s fees.  On remand, the trial judge did just that, awarding defendants over $1.42 million in fees (out of a requested more than $2.4 million) and denying the request for 1.5 lodestar enhancement.  The trial judge then ordered that interest on the fee award should run from the date of the original judgment rather than the date of the fee award on remand.

            Plaintiffs appealed on the interest trigger date, but they lost their challenge.  After surveying several California decisions, the Pacifica II appellate panel decided that the substance of the remand was an upward modification of the judgment (even though framed like a reversal), such that interest ran from the date of the original judgment.