Ohio Court of Appeals, 1997

Nakoff v. Fair View General Hospital

Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided March 17, 1997 · Blackmon, Nahra, Spellacy

694 N.E.2d 107; 118 Ohio App. 3d 786 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Snyder v. Lindsay, Unpublished Decision (10-9-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
Lehrner v. Safeco Insurance/American States Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
United Ins. Co. v. Chapman Industries (Nev. 2004)
Floom v. Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., Unpublished Decision (11-3-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Conte v. General Housewares Corp. (6th Cir. 2000)
Bonacorsi v. Wheeling Lake Erie Railway, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Ickes v. Cna Insurance, Unpublished Decision (5-6-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
Schumacker v. Zoll, Unpublished Decision (10-5-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
Erik Conte v. General Housewares Corporation, Dayton Power & Light Company (6th Cir. 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

In this accelerated appeal, we must determine whether a prejudgment interest award is subject to postjudgment interest, and if so, whether prejudgment interest and the underlying damage award are merged for purposes of the postjudgment interest. The trial court ruled that prejudgment interest is subject to postjudgment interest and is merged with the underlying damage award for purposes of postjudgment interest. The appellant appeals the trial court’s ruling and assigns the following error for our review.

“The trial court erred in granting plaintiff-appellee’s request for ‘postjudgment interest on prejudgment interest,’ in violation to R.C. 1343.03.”

After viewing the record and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the trial court is correct. Here, appellee was awarded $2,486,933.86 for appellant’s negligence. Thereafter, the trial court awarded him $964,793.87 in prejudgment interest. He then moved to merge the two awards and have postjudgment interest calculated thereon. The trial court granted his motion, and this appeal followed.

We conclude that postjudgment interest may be calculated on prejudgment interest and that postjudgment interest on prejudgment interest is not *788 compounded interest. When interest is in fact a part of the debt owed, awarding interest upon the interest that is a part of the debt is not compounded interest. Singer v. Celina Group (May 30, 1995), Stark App. No. 0333, unreported, 1995 WL 495427 (relying on Anketel v. Converse [1866], 17 Ohio St. 11).

Singer also held that prejudgment interest shall be merged with the underlying damage award for purposes of postjudgment interest. Because prejudgment interest is a part of the judgment and like all other components is merged into a single judgment, we uphold the trial court’s decision. See Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc. (Fla. 1996), 670 So.2d 929 (prejudgment interest becomes a part of a single total sum adjudged to be due and owing, with postjudgment interest then accruing on the merged total).

Accordingly, appellant’s assigned error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Patricia Ann Blackmon, Nahra, and Spellacy, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.