Facts: Respondet Fisher Properties filed suit in the Superior Court for King County against petitioner Arden-Mayfair after Arden-Mayfair ended its lease with Fisher Properties and refused to restore the leased property to its original condition. The trial court ordered Arden-Mayfair to pay damages totaling the amount required for restoration. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington remanded the case to the trial court for a new determination of damages based upon the difference between the market value and the diminution value. Arden-Mayfair subsequently appealed the trial court’s new determination of damages and post-judgment interest to the Supreme Court of Washington, asserting that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion.
Question(s): Were the trial court’s determinations regarding the value of the property and the diminution thereof supported by substantial evidence?
What is the proper basis for determining post-judgment interest?
Conclusion: Justice Utter’s opinion for a unanimous Court held that the determination of damages was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no evidence that the trial court had abused its discretion. The Court also ruled that post-judgment interest should run from the date of entry of the new judgment after the Court’s earlier remand had vacated the trial court’s initial judgment as the new judgment had required new findings of fact.
Docket No. 55135-9; 55845-1
Petitioner: Arden-Mayfair, Inc.
(Counsel: William A. Helsell and Bradley H. Bagshaw)
Respondent: Fisher Properties, Inc.
(Counsel: Edward W. Pettigrew, Douglas C. Berry, and Frederick O. Frederickson)
Decided: Thursday, October 18th, 1990
Opinion: 115 Wn.2d 364 (1990)
Court: Callow2 Court (1989-1990)
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Undetermined votes indicate that the opinion(s) have not been evaluated yet.