Summary
The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a default judgment involving an unpaid commercial account and a returned check. The court held that prejudgment interest is available when damages are ascertainable by mathematical computation, regardless of whether the claim sounds in contract or tort, and that Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A) mandates double damages for a qualifying dishonored check. The circuit court was directed to enter a judgment consistent with those holdings while considering limits on double recovery and prejudgment interest.
Holdings
- Prejudgment interest must be awarded when the damages are definitely ascertainable by mathematical computation or can be computed from evidence without reliance on opinion or discretion; entitlement does not depend on whether the action is characterized as contractual or tortious.
- When the statutory prerequisites are satisfied, section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A) requires liability for twice the amount of the dishonored check, subject to the statutory minimum; the double-damages amount is not discretionary and the statutory minimum is not a maximum.
Questions Presented
- Whether prejudgment interest was required when the amount owed was ascertainable by mathematical computation, notwithstanding the nature of the underlying claim.
- Whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A) requires an award of twice the amount of a qualifying dishonored check when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (7)
- Conway Com. Warehousing, LLC v. FedEx Freight E., Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 51, 381 S.W.3d 94(followed)
- Bonds v. Hunt, 2010 Ark. App. 415, 379 S.W.3d 57(followed)
- Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. Troutman Oil Co., 327 Ark. 448, 938 S.W.2d 565 (1997)(followed)
- Travis Lumber Co. v. Deichman, 2009 Ark. 299, 319 S.W.3d 239(followed)
- S. Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 2014 Ark. App. 437, 440 S.W.3d 346(followed)
- Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Trotter Ford, Inc., 2024 Ark. 31, 685 S.W.3d 889(followed)
- Meadow Lake Farms, Inc. v. Cooper, 360 Ark. 164, 200 S.W.3d 399 (2004)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.