You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
I'<br />
applies to judgments on a contract (the rate specified in the contract with a<br />
maximum rate <strong>of</strong> 18% per year).<br />
Texas Finance Code§ 304.003(c)(l) applies in cases where§ 304.002 does<br />
not apply (i.e. cases other than contract cases). The Judgment in this case awards<br />
no damages for breach <strong>of</strong> contract against any party. Therefore, Texas Finance<br />
Code § 304.003(c)(l) (for non-contract cases) controls the postjudgment interest<br />
rate in this case, which is the prime rate as published on the date <strong>of</strong> computation.<br />
On August 5, 2011, the date <strong>of</strong> Judgment, the prime rate was 5%. 14<br />
Therefore, any award <strong>of</strong> interest at all should be calculated at 5% and not 12%.<br />
Appellee apparently uses 12% on the basis that the Note between lnvictus<br />
and Appellee calls for interest at 12% per annum. However, as is clear from the<br />
face <strong>of</strong> the Judgment, the Judgment does not award any damages for breach <strong>of</strong> any<br />
contract or breach <strong>of</strong> the Note. Therefore, basing a prejudgment or postjudgment<br />
interest award on the Note's 12% interest calculation is erroneous.<br />
The Judgment interest rate should be 5%, pursuant to Texas Finance Code<br />
§ 304.003( c)( 1 ).<br />
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER<br />
In conclusion, the Judgment is erroneous, because it awards damages for<br />
fraud, when fraud was not pled or proven in Appellee's Motion for Summary<br />
Judgment. Appellee also failed to prove an alter ego claim, because Appellee did<br />
14 See http://www.occc.state.tx.us/pages/int rates/lndex.html, Office <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Consumer Credit Commissioner Judgment Interest Rate publication and Texas<br />
Credit Letter<br />
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 34
Change language