Interest: 2/7 DCA Decides That Its Prior Directive Was A Reversal, Not A Modification, So That Interest Ran From The Second Fee Award

Reversal/Modification Delineation Can Be Fuzzy, But It Was A Reversal In This Case.

               Acting Presiding Justice Segal, in Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Case No. B327821 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 25, 2024) (published), quite correctly in our view noted that the issue for when interest runs on an earlier versus corrected attorney’s fees award can be thorny.  The key distinction focuses on whether the appellate court reversed or simply modified the prior order.  In the end, based on what was done in the prior appellate opinion, it was a reversal so that interest did not run until the later attorney’s fees order was entered—the dispute centered upon a $138,454.44 interest issue.  The opinion has a good discussion of the California Supreme Court’s Stockton Theatres opinion and other case law in this area.