The Wyoming Supreme Court has affirmed a district court’s decision to award prejudgment interest to YJ Construction, Inc. (YJ) following a jury verdict against homeowners Russ and Debi Ropken (the Ropkens) for unpaid construction work. The high court ruled that the district court was authorized to make the interest award, even though a jury, not the judge, was the trier of fact in the underlying breach of contract case.
The case centers on a dispute stemming from the construction of a custom home in Park County, Wyoming, which began in the summer of 2021 based on an oral agreement. Problems arose when the Ropkens stopped paying invoices, culminating in them removing YJ from the job site in July 2022. YJ sued for payment on three outstanding invoices totaling $276,169.
Jury Awards Damages, Court Adds Interest
After a five-day trial, the jury found that the Ropkens had breached a valid contract and awarded YJ damages of $258,587.70—an amount slightly less than what YJ had originally claimed. The district court entered judgment based on this figure. Crucially, the judgment order provided YJ 21 days to request costs and/or prejudgment interest.
YJ timely filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest, which the Ropkens opposed. The district court ultimately awarded YJ $33,473.25 in prejudgment interest, calculated by applying the statutory rate of 7% to the jury’s damage award. The Ropkens appealed, raising two main issues: whether the court erred in awarding the interest, and whether they were denied due process by not receiving an evidentiary hearing on the interest calculation.
Court Authority to Award Interest Confirmed
The Supreme Court addressed the Ropkens’ primary argument that the district court lacked the authority to award prejudgment interest because the jury determined the damages. The Ropkens contended that because the jury was the trier of fact, only the jury could decide on interest.
Justice Hill, writing for the unanimous court, clarified that Wyoming law does not require the trier of fact to decide prejudgment interest. Citing several prior Wyoming cases—including *Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co.*—the Court inferred that district courts possess the authority to award prejudgment interest as a matter of law, especially when the interest is “incident to an award of the contract price” and does not involve a question of fact for the jury.
The Court expressly stated: “We further take this opportunity to expressly state that a district court has authority to and may consider and award prejudgment interest even when it is not the trier of fact.”
Liquidated Claim Satisfied Two-Part Test
The second part of the Ropkens’ challenge argued that the district court abused its discretion by finding YJ met the burden of proving entitlement to interest. Wyoming law requires a two-part test for prejudgment interest: (1) the claim must be “liquidated” (readily computable by simple mathematics), and (2) the debtor must have received notice of the amount due before interest begins to accumulate.
The Court found that YJ’s claim for damages based on three unpaid invoices qualified as liquidated. YJ consistently demanded $276,169 based on these invoices, providing them to the Ropkens. While the Ropkens admitted owing at least $176,870.21, the Court noted that “a mere difference of opinion as to the amount due… does not preclude prejudgment interest if the amount sought to be recovered is a sum certain.”
The Ropkens argued the claim only became liquidated when the jury awarded $258,587.70. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Ropkens failed to provide a sufficient record on appeal, specifically lacking the trial transcript and the invoices themselves. Because the appellate court could not determine why the jury reduced the amount from $276,169, it followed the established rule: when an appellant fails to bring forth a sufficient record, the Court assumes the district court’s rulings were correct.
Regarding the notice requirement, the Court confirmed the district court properly used the October 24, 2022, demand letter—which itemized the three unpaid invoices totaling $276,169—as the starting point for accruing interest.
Due Process Claim Waived
Finally, the Ropkens claimed they were denied due process by the district court awarding interest without an evidentiary hearing on the merits. The Supreme Court declined to consider this issue because the Ropkens never raised it in the district court proceedings.
The Court pointed out that the Ropkens *did* file a timely objection to YJ’s motion for prejudgment interest, which allowed them to present their arguments in writing. This written objection provided the “meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Since the Ropkens never requested a formal hearing and failed to argue the due process violation below, the appellate court deemed the claim waived.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order awarding YJ Construction $33,473.25 in prejudgment interest.