Appeals Court February 21, 2012
Facts: After years of litigation, defendants prevailed on all counts. A Superior Court judge determined that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and not advanced in good faith and ruled that defendants were entitled to more than $1.23 million in attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6F plus post-judgment interest pursuant to G.L. c. 235, § 8(4) from the date the award was entered on the docket until the date of execution. Plaintiffs appeal.
Holding: Order affirmed.
Issue: Whether the Superior Court may grant post-judgment statutory interest on an award of attorney’s fees and costs made pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6F.(3)?
Yes. §8 provides that “[e]very judgment for the payment of money shall bear interest from the day of its entry . . . as provided for prejudgment interest in such award, report, verdict or finding.” First, the fact that §6F does not explicitly provide for interest does not preclude analysis under §8 because the Legislature was not required to provide a redundant provision ordering interest awards under § 6F. Second, under §8, the award of fees and costs here qualifies as a “judgment” because it was subject to immediate appeal, and, at the time the interest was ordered on the §6F award, the appeal of the §6F award by the plaintiffs was finalized. Further, because the § 6F award of attorneys’ fees and costs was a judgment for the purposes of §8, “[t]he addition of post-judgment interest is an automatic ministerial task and a judge need not expressly allow it.” Karellas v. Karellas, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 469, 475 (2002). Thus, the fact that the judge ordering the original §6F award did not mention interest is no bar for the defendants. (LP)
