Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />decision only sets forth $622,000 and not any accrued pre and post judgment <br />interest, attorney fees and expert fees. They request 8% interest from March <br />22, 2001 to the present with regular increases in the bond until Basin <br />Resources pays the judgment. <br />i <br />In the Tatums' subsidence case, the trial court awarded the Tatums $622,000 <br />in compensatory damages, costs including reasonable attorney fees and <br />expert witness fees, sand ordered that the judgment earn pre judgment <br />interest from the date of filing of the complaint, and post judgment interest <br />° as provided by law. See Exhibit F. <br />i <br />The Division's position is that prejudgment interest is appropriate for <br />inclusion in the bond but post judgment interest, attorney fees and expert <br />fees are not appropriate inclusions.'0 <br />i <br />Interest, in the common acceptance of the term is the compensation allowed <br />by law, or fixed by the parties for the use, detention or forbearance of money <br />or its equivalent. FRICO v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119 (Colo. 2005). <br />Early Colorado jurisprudence emphasized that interest was a creature of <br />statute and in absence of contract, recoverable only in cases enumerated in <br />the relevant statute. ild. <br />i <br />Nevertheless, even where interest was not recoverable under statute, many <br />courts distinguished statutory interest and interest as damages or "moratory" <br />interest and allowed the equivalent of interest in the way of damages for <br />tortious taking and detention of money or property. Id. At common law, the <br />doctrine of moratory! interest relied on the concept of interest as damages <br />and unjust enrichment as a basis for awarding common law interest rather <br />than statutory interest. Id. Thus, prejudgment interest was in the nature of <br />another item of compensatory damages. Its award was permitted as an <br />element of damages in actions for breach of contract or in actions for tort for <br />the detention and use, of money. Id. <br />Colorado has since codified the common law doctrine of moratory interest. <br />Sections 5-12-102(1-3), C.R.S. codify the doctrine in contract and property <br />i <br />10 On April 2, 2007, the Division filed a brief in support of its proposed decision to increase the bond and <br />stated that it objected to inclusion in the bond amount of pre and post judgment interest, attorney fees and <br />expert fees. The Division now believes that prejudgment interest should be included in the bond but <br />continues'to assert that post j idgment interest, attorney fees and expert fees should not be included in the <br />bond. <br />22