Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013

Section 600.6013 does not provide prejudgment interest for Jones Act claims because interest on those judgments is governed by federal substantive law.

Shemman v. American Steamship Co. · filed 1979-04-05

The trial court was correct in denying prejudgment interest. ... The allowance of interest on such judgments is a matter of Federal substantive law.

Section 600.6013 does not apply to compulsory interest arbitration in the public sector, and an Act 312 arbitration award is not a money judgment recovered in a civil action for purposes of the statute.

City of Hamtramck v. Hamtramck Firefighters Ass'n · filed 1983-08-31

The Act 312 arbitration award is not a 'money judgment recovered in a civil action’. MCL 600.6013, as part of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, does not apply to compulsory interest arbitration in the public sector.

Section 600.6013 does not apply to money awards in divorce actions.

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 1989-03-20

In doing so we take special note that the "Interest on Money Judgment” statute, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, does not apply to money awards in divorce actions, Lawrence v Lawrence, 150 Mich App 29; 388 NW2d 291 (1986), Saber v Saber, 146 Mich App 108; 379 NW2d 478 (1985), and Ashbrenner v Ashbrenner, 156 Mich App 373; 401 NW2d 373 (1986), and that interest on such awards is granted solely pursuant to the equitable powers of the court.

Section 600.6013(1) allows interest only on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, so it does not apply to a post-judgment sanctions award.

Lech v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association · filed 2015-04-16(1)

MCL 600.6013(1) provides that “[i]nterest is allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, as provided in this section.” ... We conclude that a sanctions award is properly characterized as an order directing that an act be done instead of a money judgment in a civil action. ... Because this case concerned a post-judgment proceeding to collect sanctions, we conclude that its decision was improper.

Section 600.6013 authorizes the trial court to award interest after the jury has reached its verdict.

Citizens National Bank v. Mayes · filed 1984-04-17

Costs were properly awarded pursuant to GCR 1963, 526.1, attorney fees were properly awarded pursuant to GCR 1963, 316.7(b)(2), and interest was properly awarded pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. All three of these items are properly decided by the trial court after the jury has reached its verdict.

Subsection (5) governs interest on an arbitration award from the filing of the motion to confirm the award until the judgment is satisfied.

Wiselogle v. Michigan Mutual Insurance · filed 1995-08-15(5)

The presence of a prior arbitration agreement means that MCL 438.7; MSA 19.4, rather than MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, governs the award of prejudgment interest in this case from the date the arbitration award was rendered until a motion was filed to confirm the award and reduce it to judgment. Old Orchard, supra at 264. Thereafter, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 governs the award of interest from the date the motion to confirm was filed until the date the judgment was satisfied. Gordon Sel-Way, supra at 504.

Section 600.6013 does not apply to reductions of future damages awards.

Kovacs v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · filed 1984-05-14

Defendant first objects to the trial court’s reading of standard jury instruction SJI 53:03 which instructed the jury to reduce its award for future damages by five percent. Defendant argues that the court should instead have instructed the jury to reduce any future damages award by a rate of 12%, pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. We disagree and choose instead to follow the recent opinion of this Court in Goins v Ford Motor Co., 131 Mich App 185; NW2d (1983), in which it was held that MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 does not apply to reductions of future damages awards.

Section 600.6013 permits interest to continue after a tort settlement offer when the offer is not substantially identical or more favorable to the prevailing party than the judgment.

Bertilacci v. Avery · filed 1972-08-29

We would be "hard put” to conclude that the offer of settlement was "substantially identical” to the judgment finally obtained by plaintiffs. Hence, it can hardly be said that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing interest beyond the date, of the offer.

Section 600.6013 requires prejudgment interest to stop on the date a rejected settlement offer is filed with the court, permits a pre-verdict offer to be filed after the verdict, and measures a bona fide offer against the judgment amount before prejudgment interest.

Haberkorn v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1995-04-28(7), (10), and (11)(a)(i)

We disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the tolling provision of the prejudgment interest statute. ... Nothing in subsection 7 implies that an offer of settlement made before the verdict may not be ñled after the verdict. ... Because subsection 7 requires tolling of prejudgment interest between the date defendant filed the offer, August 6, 1991, and the date judgment was entered, October 16, 1991, we remand for recalculation of the prejudgment interest accordingly. ... Plaintiffs’ interpretation of subsection 10 is not persuasive, and we reject it. ... Because the prejudgment interest statute addresses the circumstances under which such interest may be imposed, its starting point is necessarily the amount of the judgment before the addition of such interest.

Section 600.6013 cuts off prejudgment interest after a plaintiff rejects a bona fide, reasonable written settlement offer in a tort action that meets the statutory percentage of the amount ultimately received through judgment.

Estate of Franklin a Denison Sr v. Palm Beach Polo Holdings Inc · filed 2016-01-21(9), (15)(a)(i)

Palm Beach’s offer to settle the attorney fee issue was less than 20% “of the amount actually received by the plaintiff in the action through judgment.” The offer to settle the unjust enrichment damages was comparable to the $65,031.25 ultimately calculated by the court. As correctly noted by the trial court, however, the total judgment in this case includes a combination of the two awards, and the settlement offer was far below that figure—the settlement was only 52.02% of the combined judgment to be exact. Accordingly, Palm Beach cannot avoid the accrual of prejudgment interest under the statute.

Subsection (5) allows a qualifying settlement offer to stop judgment interest in a civil action based on tort; the insurer’s offer did not stop interest on this contract claim.

Sederholm v. Michigan Mutual Insurance · filed 1985-05-06(5)

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred since the statute refers to tort actions only and because the offer of settlement excluded any interest on the Sederholm-Salmi judgment. We agree with plaintiffs. ... The statute provides that the interest may be tolled in civil actions based upon tort.

Section 600.6013 does not require prejudgment interest on a property distribution awarded in a divorce judgment because the distribution is not a money judgment recovered in a civil action.

Saber v. Saber · filed 1985-10-07

Similarly, in a divorce action, the court does not compensate a party for loss but rather seeks an equitable distribution of property. To award interest from the date of the complaint, as mandated by MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, would not effectuate the legislative purpose of compensating a plaintiff for a loss of use of the funds. Therefore, we find that a property distribution in a. divorce judgment is not a money judgment within the meaning of MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013 provides prejudgment interest on money judgments in civil actions, but it does not apply to property distributions in divorce judgments.

Ashbrenner v. Ashbrenner · filed 1986-11-18

The statute applies only to money judgments in civil actions, which do not include property distributions in divorce judgments.

For complaints filed before June 1, 1980, § 600.6013(2) applies 6% simple interest before that date, and 12% annual compounding afterward only to the judgment principal, not to the accrued pre-June 1 interest.

Gage v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1985-11-13(2)

We agree with the Court of Appeals in Gage that the Legislature did not intend to provide for compounding of interest before June 1, 1980. ... However, we disagree with the Court of Appeals conclusion that the interest that accrued at the six-percent rate before June 1, 1980, should be part of the base on which the later twelve percent compound interest is computed. ... Only interest accruing after June 1, 1980, merges with the judgment and becomes part of the base for calculating future, interest. The Legislature’s intention was that there was to be no change in the manner in which interest accruing before June 1, 1980, was to be treated.

Section 600.6013 does not govern prejudgment interest in a state-court admiralty action; applicable federal admiralty rules control.

Dundee v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc · filed 1985-11-19

Defendant next argues that the trial court improperly awarded prejudgment interest on the jury verdict in accordance with MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. ... We find that the trial court did err by awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest on the judgment. An action in admiralty, such as plaintiffs claim of the unseaworthiness of defendant’s vessel, should be tried under the applicable rules of admiralty even when brought in a state court. ... Under either of these analyses, the trial court should not have awarded plaintiff prejudgment interest. We, therefore, vacate that portion of the judgment.

Section 600.6013 does not apply to a probate court order awarding a widow a forced share of an estate because that order is not a money judgment recovered in a civil action.

Cummins v. George · filed 1982-10-18

We therefore conclude that a probate court order awarding a widow a forced share of an estate pursuant to MCL 700.126; MSA 27.5126 is not a "money judgment recovered in a civil action” as that term is used in MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013 does not apply to a divorce judgment distributing property, even when it requires a money payment secured by a lien.

Lawrence v. Lawrence · filed 1986-03-18

We agree with the holding in Saber and believe that a judgment entered in a divorce action in order to effectuate a property division is. not a "money judgment recovered in a civil action” as contemplated by MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013 authorizes Michigan courts to award prejudgment interest, but it does not control prejudgment interest on FELA judgments because that issue is governed by federal substantive law.

Vaughan v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad · filed 1986-03-27

Finally, we have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest. Despite the provision of MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, which authorizes Michigan courts to award prejudgment interest, the allowance of such interest on pela judgments by Michigan courts is a matter of federal substantive law.

Section 600.6013(1) does not provide prejudgment interest on attorney-fee awards when the award already defrays the cost of litigation.

Harvey v. Gerber · filed 1986-07-22(1)

The prejudgment interest statute provides that "interest shall be allowed on a money judgment.” MCL 600.6013(1); MSA 27A.6013(1). The objectives of the prejudgment interest statute are to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of use of monies owed to defray the cost of litigation. ... Applying the prejudgment interest statute to attorney fees is illogical in light of these policies. Where a statute or court rule awards attorney fees, the cost is sufficiently defrayed.

Section 600.6013 permits interest to be awarded on an award of costs and attorney fees.

Wayne-Oakland Bank v. Brown Valley Farms, Inc. · filed 1988-07-18

We further find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s award of twelve percent interest on the amount of costs and attorney fees from June 25, 1982. Our Supreme Court and several panels of this Court have held that interest may be granted on an award of costs and attorney fees pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013 does not permit prejudgment interest on attorney fees awarded under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

Smolen v. Dahlmann Apartments, Ltd · filed 1990-11-19

Finally, plaintiffs argue that the interest on the attorney fee portion of an award under the mcpa should accrue from the date of the filing of the complaint or at least from the date of the original order granting attorney fees. We disagree. This Court in Harvey v Gerber, 153 Mich App 528; 396 NW2d 470 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 881 (1987), held that prejudgment interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 could not be assessed on attorney fees awarded under the mcpa. We agree.

Section 600.6013 requires interest on a Civil Rights Act attorney-fee award because the award is a money judgment, with the applicable subsection (6) formula determined by the statute in effect for the case.

Schellenberg v. Rochester, Michigan, Lodge No 2225 of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America · filed 1998-02-10(1) and (6)

A plaintiff who prevailed in a civil rights action before the 1993 amendments of § 6013(6) was entitled to interest on attorney fees under that statute because the Civil Rights Act defines attorney fees as “damages.” The 1993 amendments clarify this and further provide that interest will also be applied to costs. The interest calculation in § 6013(6) in effect before the 1993 amendment applies to this judgment. Accordingly, we hold that in its order of December 22, 1995 (Docket No. 191951), interest on the attorney fees should have been awarded under § 6013(6). On remand, the court is to compute interest on the attorney fees awarded in its order of December 22, 1995, pursuant to the formula set forth in § 6013(6).

Section 600.6013 permits prejudgment interest on attorney fees awarded under the slander-of-title statute when the claim was filed solely to slander title and the conduct was malicious.

B & B Investment Group v. Gitler · filed 1998-07-14(6)

Because the instant statute is similar to the no-fault act in that it provides for attorney fees only in the limited circumstance where the claim of interest is filed solely for the purpose of slandering title, and because the trial court here expressly found that defendant acted with malicious intent, in wilful and wanton disregard of plaintiff’s rights, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest on its award of attorney fees under the statute. However, because we have vacated the award of exemplary damages, remand is necessary for recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Subsection 6013(6) requires interest on a civil money judgment to be calculated on the entire judgment, including attorney fees and other costs, while directing that interest on the attorney-fee portion be retained by the plaintiff.

Grow v. W a Thomas Co. · filed 1999-10-22(6)

Contrary to defendants’ argument on appeal, the last sentence of subsection 6013(6) does not render ambiguous the sentence immediately before it. There is nothing ambiguous about the statute’s mandate that interest be awarded on plaintiff’s money judgment, including costs and attorney fees. That plaintiff, rather than her counsel, is entitled to the interest on the portion of the judgment representing the attorney fee does not change this fact. Accordingly, the trial court properly awarded prejudgment interest on the entire judgment, including plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees.

Section 600.6013(6) permits prejudgment interest on no-fault penalty interest because that penalty interest is a cost included in the money judgment.

Attard v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America · filed 1999-12-01(6)

Because the no-fault act’s interest provision is intended to penalize the insurer for its misconduct rather than compensate the insured for damages caused by the insurer, we conclude that a prevailing plaintiff may recover no-fault penalty interest under MCL 500.3142; MSA 24.13142 as a cost subject to prejudgment interest under MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013(8) mandates prejudgment interest on a money judgment, including attorney fees and costs, calculated from the complaint-filing date without interruption for prejudgment appellate delay.

Tinman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2019-02-28(8)

MCL 600.6013(8) “plainly states that interest on a money judgment is calculated from the date of filing the complaint.” ... Further, “the statute expressly applies to ‘attorney fees and other costs’ ” as being part of the money judgment on which interest is calculated. ... Accordingly, an award of prejudgment interest under MCL 600.6013(8) was mandatory in this case.

Section 600.6013(8) calculates interest from the date the complaint is filed on all parts of a judgment, including attorney fees and costs awarded as mediation sanctions.

Dykema Gossett Pllc v. Ajluni · filed 2007-03-14(8)

Plaintiff correctly cites MCL 600.6013(8) for the proposition that interest is calculated “from the date of filing the complaint.” And Ayar, supra at 716-717, clarifies that this holds true for *24all parts of the judgment, including attorney fees and costs ordered as mediation sanctions.

Section 600.6013 provides prejudgment interest from the filing of a complaint through satisfaction of judgment, including in no-fault insurance litigation.

Wendt v. Auto-Owners Insurance · filed 1986-11-04

The prejudgment interest statute, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, which is applicable to no-fault insurance litigation, Wood v DAIIE, 413 Mich 573, 589; 321 NW2d 653 (1982); Denham v Bedford, 407 Mich 517, 527; 287 NW2d 168 (1980), provides for interest from the date of the filing of a complaint to the date of satisfaction of judgment to compensate a party for its loss of use of the funds.

Section 600.6013 provides that interest on a money judgment in a civil action runs from the filing of the complaint through satisfaction of the judgment, but for benefits paid after the action begins, interest accrues only from the date the benefits were paid because the claimant had not yet lost use of those funds.

Farmers Insurance Group v. Lynch · filed 1990-11-09

Interest on a money judgment in a civil action is awarded "from the date of filing the complaint to the date of satisfaction of the judgment.” MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. The purpose of prejudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing party for the delay in recovering money damages. ... We therefore conclude that the trial court properly followed this Court’s decision in Central Michigan Univ Faculty Ass’n v Stengren, 142 Mich App 455, 461; 370 NW2d 383 (1985), and awarded Farmers prejudgment interest on benefits paid after commencement of the action only from the date the benefits were paid. ... Farmers did not suffer any loss of the use of funds for which interest could accrue until the benefits were paid.

Section 600.6013 entitles a prevailing party in a civil action to prejudgment interest from the filing of the complaint until judgment, while claims arising after filing accrue interest from the date of delay.

Beach v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 1996-07-12

MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 entitles a prevailing party in a civil action to prejudgment interest from the date the complaint was filed to the entry of judgment.

Section 600.6013(5) provides prejudgment interest for delay between the filing of the complaint and entry of judgment, not for delay occurring before the complaint was filed.

Society of St. Vincent De Paul in the Archdiocese v. Mt. Hawley Insurance · filed 1999-05-06(5)

The statute is not designed to compensate a party for delay prior to the time the complaint is filed.

Section 600.6013(5) and (6) calculate prejudgment interest on qualifying money judgments from the filing date of the complaint that initiates the action between the parties.

Amerisure Insurance v. Graff Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 2003-09-13(5), (6)

This statute provides that in the case of both a judgment on a written instrument and a money judgment, interest is paid from the date of filing the complaint. ... Thus, we hold that the statutory reference to “the complaint” means the complaint that initiates the legal action between the two parties — in this case, plaintiffs complaint for declaratory judgment.

Section 600.6013(8) requires prejudgment interest to run from the date the complaint is filed and includes periods when the case is on appeal because the statute has no appellate-delay exception.

Morales v. Auto-Owners Insurance · filed 2003-12-30(8)

Subsection 8 confirms that interest accrues “from the date of filing the complaint” and that it “is calculated on the entire amount of the money judgment, including attorney fees and other costs.” MCL 600.6013(8). ... The statute makes no exception for periods of prejudgment appellate delay. ... Under MCL 600.6013, Ms. Morales is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest that includes the four-year period during which this case was on appeal.

Section 600.6013 generally requires interest on money judgments from the complaint date, but a delay not caused by the judgment debtor may suspend accrual during a court-ordered stay.

Heyler v. Dixon · filed 1987-05-08

MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 expressly provides that interest is to be paid on money judgments from the date the complaint is filed. The provision is primarily remedial and is intended to compensate prevailing parties for expenses incurred in bringing actions for money damages and for any delay in receiving such damages. ... Because it is remedial in nature, it is to be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose. ... The use of the word "shall” in a statute connotes mandatory duty or requirement. ... Furthermore, imposition of statutory interest on money judgments recovered in civil actions is mandatory. ... In view of the decisions in other jurisdictions that, where delay is caused through no fault of the debtor and because delay in the instant case was not occasioned by defendant Stevens, we hold that the trial court in the instant case did not err in disallowing prejudgment interest during the period of stay.

Section 600.6013(1) allows interest only on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, so it does not apply to an administrative Tax Tribunal proceeding lacking such a judgment.

Federal-Mogul Corp. v. Department of Treasury · filed 1987-07-07(1)

We find that these provisions do not apply to an administrative proceeding. The rja, adopted in 1961, applies only to the organization and jurisdiction of the courts and to civil procedure. City of Birmingham v Oakland Co, 49 Mich App 299, 306-307; 212 NW2d 51 (1973). Since this is an administrative proceeding before the Tax Tribunal, the rja does not apply. ... Without a money judgment in this case, it is abundantly clear that § 6013 of the rja cannot apply. A third reason precluding application of § 6013 to this case is that it is not a civil action. This Court has held that the provisions for statutory interest do not apply to an arbitration award because arbitration proceedings are not the equivalent of a civil action. Moultrie v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange, 123 Mich App 403, 406-407; 333 NW2d 298 (1983). By extension, an administrative proceeding is not the equivalent of a civil action.

Section 600.6013 requires interest on a judgment to be awarded from the date the complaint was filed.

Ombrello v. Montgomery Ward Long Term Disability Trust · filed 1987-10-20

Pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, interest should have been awarded on the judgment from the date of the filing of the complaint.

Section 600.6013 requires interest on a money judgment from the date the complaint is filed; interest included in a jury award cannot cover that same period again.

Berg v. Grand Rapids Gravel Co. · filed 1972-09-26

From the foregoing statutory provision, however, it appears that statutory interest is required to be imposed from the date of filing of the complaint. ... As defendant contends, the court’s instruction to the jury, herein considered, had the effect of improperly allowing the imposition of double interest from the date of filing of the complaint to the date of the jury’s verdict.

Section 600.6013(2) calculates interest on this judgment from the filing of the counterclaim until the judgment is satisfied.

Kirkendall v. Heckinger · filed 1981-04-22(2)

The interest amount to which defendants are entitled is determined by referring. to MCL 600.6013(2); MSA 27A.6013(2), which presently provides: ... This calculation should date from November 17, 1975, the date defendants filed their counterclaim, until the date judgment is satisfied.

Subsection (6) governs when the case did not result in a final, nonappealable judgment as of July 1, 2002, directing interest to be calculated under subsection (8) rather than subsection (5), and the statute does not permit abating prejudgment interest for appellate delay.

Eller v. Metro Industrial Contracting, Inc. · filed 2004-07-07(6), (8)

Metro also argues that the trial court erred in holding that the prejudgment interest rate was to be based on the rate of interest for United States treasury notes in accordance with MCL 600.6013(8), rather than the twelve percent rate prescribed in MCL 600.6013(5). We disagree. Metro's claim is predicated on our holding that this Court's opinion in the prior appeal was a final judgment. Having rejected that claim, we conclude that no error occurred because the final judgment in this case is that of the trial court which was entered on May 23, 2002, and which is now on appeal. Thus, the case did not result "in a final, nonappealable judgment as of July 1, 2002." MCL 600.6013(6). Therefore, MCL 600.6013(6) controls and directs that interest is calculated under subsection 8. ... In Morales, the Court held that MCL 600.6013 "makes no exception for periods of prejudgment appellate delay." ... Accordingly, the portion of the trial court's judgment abating accrued interest during both the prior appeal and this appeal is reversed, and we remand for recalculation of the appropriate amount of interest.

Section 600.6013(6) controls the interest calculation when the case did not result in a final, nonappealable judgment by July 1, 2002, requiring calculation under subsection (8).

Eller v. Metro Industrial Contracting, Inc. · filed 2004-04-15(6), (8)

Thus, the case did not result “in a final, nonappealable judgment as of July 1, 2002.” MCL 600.6013(6). Therefore, MCL 600.6013(6) controls and directs that interest is calculated under subsection 8.

Section 600.6013(6) requires interest on a money judgment to be calculated using the statutory rate at six-month intervals, rather than a flat rate.

Morris v. Clawson Tank Co. · filed 1997-04-09(6)

On remand, the trial court must apply the statutory interest rate on the back pay award instead of a flat interest rate.

Section 600.6013(8) sets the prejudgment interest rate at one percentage point above the specified six-month average rate for five-year Treasury notes, compounded annually.

Hunt v. Hadden · filed 2016-02-02(8)

The Michigan statute states that the interest rate shall be “equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer, and compounded annually.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8). ... The Court will permit the plaintiffs to furnish supplemental information establishing the proper interest rate for the correct period noted above and calculate the amount “on the entire amount of the money judgment, including attorney fees and other costs.”

Section 600.6013(8) supplies a prejudgment interest rate that a court may use when awarding interest on an LMRA judgment.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 58 v. Metro Electric Engineering Technologies, Inc. · filed 2012-07-25(8)

As such, finding no reason that the Michigan statute is inapplicable, the Court finds that the ... rate will be awarded according to Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8) as of July 12, 2011, the date of Plaintiffs demand for payment.

For an indemnification judgment, prejudgment interest runs from the date the indemnitee pays or settles the underlying claim, rather than from the date the indemnity complaint is filed, because the indemnitee suffers no loss and the amount owed is not yet determined or paid.

McDaniel v. MacOmb County Board of Road Commissioners · filed 1988-06-21(1) and (2)

In this case, the trial court’s judgment, which included prejudgment interest from the settlement date (September 28, 1982) rather than the date of the filing of the cross-complaint (July 7, 1977), was proper. The City did not sustain any injury or detriment until it paid out to the plaintiff in the underlying action. In addition, the trial court’s judgment included costs and attorney fees incurred by the city in defending the underlying action. Therefore, on the authority of McLouth Steel, supra, and its progeny, the trial court’s judgment of $114,465.54 is affirmed.

Subsection 600.6013(8) provides statutory prejudgment interest on state-law claims from the date the complaint is filed, subject to avoiding a double recovery.

MCPHERSON v. Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC · filed 2024-02-28(8)

The plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment on her state law claims, which include the value of the converted property, set by the jury at $23,000. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8). ... In any event, an award of statutory interest from the date of filing in combination with prejudgment interest as an element of damages must not result in a double recovery for the plaintiff.

Section 600.6013(4) requires 12% annual compounded interest from the filing of the complaint until the judgment is satisfied, and the interest continues when a judgment debtor merely offers payment instead of properly tendering or paying the liable amount into court.

Coughlin v. Dean · filed 1989-01-17(4)

Here, although plaintiff was precluded from accepting payment under the name and retain provision of the dramshop act as long as she pursued her appeal, nothing prevented acia from paying into court that portion of the judgment for which, as insurer, it was liable. Had acia done so, under MCR 2.620(2) it would have cut off further accrual of interest. ... Accordingly, we find that acia did not tender the amount for which it was liable sufficient to stop the accrual of interest under MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013 makes judgment interest continue to accrue until the judgment is satisfied.

Amerisure Insurance v. Auto-Owners Insurance · filed 2004-03-09

Under MCL 600.6013, interest accrues until a judgment is satisfied. Under MCR 2.620, a judgment may be satisfied by “payment to the clerk of the judgment[.]” ... Here, Amerisure’s tender of payment was not in fact a satisfaction of the judgment because it chose to pursue an appeal. Accordingly, the interest provisions apply.

Section 600.6013(6) starts prejudgment interest on a civil money judgment at the filing of the complaint, including when a later amendment merely corrects the defendant’s name.

Miszewski v. Knauf Construction, Inc · filed 1990-04-16(6)

Under the prejudgment interest statute, MCL 600.6013(6); MSA 27A.6013(6), "interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action shall be calculated . . . from the date of filing the complaint . . . ." ... The circuit court did not err in calculating the amount of prejudgment interest from the date of the original complaint.

Section 600.6013(5) requires prejudgment interest on claims existing when the complaint was filed to be calculated from the complaint’s filing date.

ROSKAM BAKING CO. v. Northern Ins. Co. of NY · filed 2000-08-02(5)

Section 600.6013(5) stands as a bright-line rule which requires payments of interest from the date the complaint is filed on all claims that existed when the complaint was filed.

For complaints filed before June 1, 1980, subsection (2) sets the applicable judgment-interest calculation for covered actions, using the rates and periods specified in the provision.

Department of Treasury v. Central Wayne County Sanitation Authority · filed 1990-06-26(2)

Furthermore, the complaint to which § 6013(2) refers can only be plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on March 7, 1977, which alleged that defendant was required to pay, and owed, surveillance fees. Because the amended complaint was filed before June 1, 1980, computation of the interest owed by defendant was proper under § 6013(2).

Section 600.6013 does not apply to judgments of divorce; interest on divorce property awards is instead governed by the court's equitable powers.

Reigle v. Reigle · filed 1991-05-20

Michigan case law clearly establishes that the statute governing interest on money judgments, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, does not apply to judgments of divorce.

Section 600.6013(1) requires interest on a child-support arrearage once each support payment becomes due because the arrearage is treated as a civil money judgment.

Langford v. Langford · filed 1992-10-19(1)

With regard to what the "attributes of a judgment” are, for purposes of determining whether a support order is a judgment entitled to interest, we can look to the judgment interest statute, which states: ... Interest shall be allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action. [MCL 600.6013(1); MSA 27A.6013(1).] ... Giving the words of the statutes their plain meaning, as we are required to do under MCL 8.3a; MSA 2.212(1); Berry v Belleville, 178 Mich App 541, 548; 444 NW2d 222 (1989), it is clear that the adoption of § 3 means that the arrearage on a support order is a judgment amount from the time that amount falls due, and that interest is to run on this amount as it would with any other civil judgment.

Subsections (5) and (6) require verdict interest to equal one percent plus the average interest rate on five-year United States Treasury notes, calculated at six-month intervals.

Warden v. Fenton Lanes, Inc · filed 1992-12-29(5) and (6)

As mandated by statute, the rate of interest to be applied to a verdict is equal to one percent plus the average interest rate on five-year United States Treasury notes, to be calculated at six-month intervals. MCL 600.6013(5) and (6); MSA 27A.6013(5) and (6). In this case, the court erred in applying a blanket rate of twelve percent.

Section 600.6013 allows a money judgment based on a written instrument to bear the instrument’s higher interest rate if that rate was legal when the instrument was executed.

Liberty State Bank & Trust v. Hemisphere Development Group, Inc · filed 1980-06-17

We find no error. ... The payment of interest on money judgments is authorized under the provisions of MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013: ... The note provided for an interest rate of 12% per year and defendant does not allege that this rate of interest was unlawful.

Section 600.6013(5)'s statutory interest rate for money judgments on written instruments does not apply to equitable interest awarded in specific-performance cases.

Giannetti v. Cornillie · filed 1995-02-22(5)

While arriving at an appropriate interest factor is not always easy, it is clear to us that MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 does not apply to interest awarded in equity. ... By comparison, the interest rate of twelve percent in MCL 600.6013(5); MSA 27A.6013(5), which was adopted by the trial court, is intended to apply to complaints filed after January 1, 1987, in which a money judgment is rendered on a written instrument. MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 is intended to provide compensation to a prevailing party for loss of use of funds awarded as a money judgment and to offset the costs of bringing a court action.

Subsection (7) does not require the written instrument to show indebtedness to the prevailing party for its specified interest rate to govern prejudgment interest.

Masters Group v. Comerica Bank · filed 2021-07-06(7)

We do not find Michigan’s prejudgment interest statute imposes a requirement the evidence of indebtedness must be shown to flow in a certain direction before Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(7) (2019) applies.

Subsection (5) supplies the applicable judgment-interest rate after the motion to confirm an arbitration award is filed.

Iron County v. Sundberg, Carolson & Associates, Inc · filed 1997-05-15(5)

Thereafter, the interest rate should have been determined by MCL 600.6013(5); MSA 27A.6013(5).

Section 600.6013 provides for pre- and postjudgment interest in civil actions at law, but does not cover this constitutional enforcement action.

Durant v. State of Michigan · filed 1997-07-31

This action is not the type of civil action at law covered by MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, which provides for pre- and postjudgment interest. Money judgments against the state in the Court of Claims are subject to posfjudgment interest, MCL 600.6455; MSA 27A.6455, but this case was not, and under art 9, § 32, could not be filed in the Court of Claims. Given that the voters have left it to the Court to develop the proper remedy, we believe that this case is closer to an equitable action than an action at law. In equitable actions, an award of interest is discretionary. Cyranoski v Keenan, 363 Mich 288, 294-295; 109 NW2d 815 (1961). The balance we have struck between the rights of the local taxpayers and the interests of the state taxpayers would be upset by an award of interest preceding the date of this opinion.

Section 600.6013 supports calculating prejudgment and postjudgment interest from the date the complaint is filed.

Powers Paper, LLC v. Northstar Sourcing LLC · filed 2025-01-13

Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest, which shall be calculated from the date of Plaintiff filing the Complaint. Venture Industries Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 196 F. App’x 894 (U.S. Fed. Cir. 2006) (interpreting Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013).

Section 600.6013 does not measure prejudgment interest from the complaint date for insurance-benefit claims arising after the complaint; interest runs from the later date when the insurer refused payment and the delay began.

Arco Industries Corp. v. American Motorists Insurance · filed 1999-01-08

As Arco acknowledges, this Court has held that, in actions to collect benefits of insurance contracts, it is error to award prejudgment interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 from the date of the complaint with respect to claims that arise after the complaint is filed. ... Rather, prejudgment interest with respect to claims that arise after the filing of the complaint is properly awarded from the postcomplaint date on which the insurer refused to pay and the delay in receiving money began.

Section 600.6013(8) provides prejudgment interest on a money judgment in a civil action, generally calculated from the complaint’s filing through entry of judgment; entitlement may be addressed when the arbitration award is reduced to judgment, with nondebtor-caused delay potentially affecting the award.

Nickola v. Mic General Insurance Company · filed 2015-09-24(8)

“MCL 600.6013 [ ] entitles a prevailing party in a civil action to prejudgment interest from the date the complaint was filed to the entry of judgment.” ... As such, we decline to address the prejudgment interest issue, without prejudice to plaintiff raising it when he moves for entry of a judgment enforcing the arbitration award. ... If plaintiff raises the issue of prejudgment interest at the time he seeks a judgment on the arbitration award, the delays in this case can be a consideration for the trial court, but should not at the outset deny plaintiff any claim to prejudgment interest under MCL 600.6013.

Section 600.6013 does not entitle a party who obtained equitable relief to prejudgment interest.

McPeak v. McPeak · filed 1999-03-23

Having sought and received equitable relief, plaintiffs are not entitled to interest pursuant to the judgment interest statute, MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013.

Section 600.6013(1) requires prejudgment interest on a civil judgment, including future damages, unless the future damages arise from personal injury.

Buzzitta v. Larizza Industries, Inc. · filed 2002-04-12(1)

The plain text of § 6013(1) requires an award of prejudgment interest on a civil judgment except for "future damages." The statutory definition of "future damages," however, is limited to damages arising from personal injury. The statutory scheme thus appears to require courts to award prejudgment interest on future damages in any case that does not involve a personal injury. The case before us does not involve a personal injury.

For a pre-July 1, 2002 complaint still lacking a final nonappealable judgment on July 1, 2002, subsection (6) requires interest on a qualifying written-instrument judgment to be calculated under subsection (8).

Shuler v. Michigan Physicians Mutual Liability Co. · filed 2004-05-04(6), (8)

Finally, mpmlc argues that the judgment interest in this case should be adjusted to reflect amendments of MCL 600.6013 that took effect during the pendency of these appeals. We agree. ... Mpmlc correctly argues that this case falls within the category of cases described in MCL 600.6013(6). ... Because the judgment at issue fits within the classification described in MCL 600.6013(6), we remand to the trial court for modification of the judgment to conform to MCL 600.6013(8).

Section 600.6013(5)’s 12% prejudgment interest rate for awards based on written instruments does not apply to a judgment on an oral contract merely memorialized in a later letter.

O'Sullivan Corp. v. Duro-Last, Inc. · filed 2001-03-28(5)

Although O’Sullivan correctly points out that Michigan law requires a 12% prejudgment interest rate for awards based on written instruments, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(5), the district court instead found that the agreement was based on the oral understanding reached during the February 15, 1996 meeting. There is no contract signed by either Duro-Last or Plastatech. The only written aspect of the agreement was its subsequent memorialization in the form of O’Sullivan’s February 27, 1996 letter. Indeed, the district court expressly concluded that the judgment was a “judgment rendered on an oral contract,” and “not a judgment rendered on a written instrument.” We find no error in the district court’s determination that the 12% interest rate is not applicable to O’Sullivan’s damage award.

Section 600.6013(1) bars prejudgment interest on future damages for complaints filed on or after October 1, 1986, including future loss-of-society-and-companionship damages arising from death.

Rickwalt v. Richfield Lakes Corp. · filed 2001-09-06(1)

Subsection 6013(1) of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.6013(1), provides that “for complaints filed on or after October 1, 1986, interest shall not be allowed on future damages from the date of filing the complaint to the date of entry of judgment.” ... Thus, reading subsections 6301(a) and (b) together, “future damages” plainly include damages arising from death that the jury finds will accrue after entry of the verdict. Damages for loss of society and companionship qualify as damages arising from death. Therefore, the instant damages for loss of society and companionship that the jury awarded for the period of the anticipated posttrial life of the decedent constituted future damages under § 6301, on which “interest shall not be allowed.” Subsection 6013(1).

Section 6013 requires prejudgment interest on future damages when the action does not result from personal bodily injury.

Paulitch v. Detroit Edison Co. · filed 1995-02-21

Strict construction of the statute directs that plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on his award of future damages.

Section 600.6013 bars prejudgment interest on future damages, and its remedial nature supports liberal construction in favor of the prevailing party.

Markley v. Oak Health Care Investors of Coldwater, Inc · filed 2003-04-18

Under MCL 600.6013, prejudgment interest is not allowed on future damages. However, nothing in the verdict form indicated that the damages were not present damages, and defendants devised the verdict form. Defendants’ argument that the burden should be placed on plaintiff to show which portion of the award was for future damages is without merit because MCL 600.6013 is remedial in nature and thus should be liberally construed in favor of the prevailing party.

Section 600.6013(1) allows interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, but not on future damages.

Velez v. Tuma · filed 2009-04-16(1)

MCL 600.6013(1) provides that the payment of interest is allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, but not on future damages. ... Because the award of future noneconomic damages was set aside, the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest was not erroneous.

Section 600.6013 provides prejudgment interest on qualifying money judgments from the complaint date, but its statutory rate does not govern reducing future damages to present value.

Sidney Diggs, IV v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc. · filed 1989-01-26

Pepsi-Cola also cites a Michigan Court of Appeals case, Freeman v. Lanning Corp., 61 Mich.App. 527, 233 N.W.2d 68 (1975), for the proposition that a reduction of future damages to present value “requires that the total award found by the trial judge be apportioned on a yearly basis and discounted at the statutory rate.” Id. at 531, 233 N.W.2d at 70. The statutory rate referred to is supplied by M.C.L.A. 600.6013 which provides that interest on money judgments in cases where the complaint was filed after June 1, 1980 is 12%. ... The court stated “[tjhere is nothing within the language of 6013 that suggests that it applies to the computation of future damages to present value.” Id. at 201, 347 N.W.2d at 192. ... Thus, we must uphold established Michigan law and enforce the 5% discount rate.

Section 600.6013(1) does not allow judgment interest on future home modification damages.

Proudfoot v. State Farm Mutual Insurance · filed 2003-03-26(1)

We agree, however, with defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to judgment interest on the future home modifications.

Section 600.6013(1) does not allow judgment interest on future damages from the filing of the complaint to entry of judgment.

Proudfoot v. State Farm Mutual Insurance · filed 2003-12-23(1)

We agree with the Court of Appeals that plaintiff is not entitled to judgment interest on the proposed home modifications. MCL 600.6013(1) provides in part that, “for complaints filed on or after October 1, 1986, interest is not allowed on future damages from the date of filing the complaint to the date of entry of the judgment.”

Section 600.6013 does not require statutory interest on an order returning seized currency because that order is not a money judgment recovered in a civil action.

In re Forfeiture of $176,598 · filed 2001-09-25

We conclude that money ordered returned to its owner under the forfeiture procedure does not constitute a “money judgment recovered in a civil action,” and thus statutory interest is not payable.

Section 600.6013(1) treats a civil-action judgment as a money judgment when it orders payment of a sum of money, but not when it directs an act or restores or transfers property.

Johnson v. Public School Employees Retirement System · filed 2020-10-15(1)

Under MCL 600.6013(1), a money judgment in a civil action is a judgment “that orders the payment of a sum of money, as distinguished from an order directing an act to be done or property to be restored or transferred.”

Section 600.6013(8) generally requires prejudgment interest on a money judgment in a typical civil action, calculated from the filing of the complaint.

In Re Wallace Estate · filed 2026-05-11(8)

For the purposes of MCL 600.6013, the term “money judgment” is “[o]ne which adjudges the payment of a sum of money, as distinguished from one directing an act to be done or property to be restored or transferred.” ... Further, the instant case bears the hallmarks of a “typical civil action[] preceding an award of a money judgment” entitling a prevailing party to statutory pre-judgment interest. ... Under these circumstances, we discern no reason to deviate from the ordinary rule that the statutory pre-judgment interest should be granted upon a money judgment when the statute applies.

Section 600.6013(1) allows interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, but an order returning seized currency in a drug-forfeiture proceeding is not such a judgment.

People Ex Rel. Wayne County Prosecutor v. $176,598.00 US Currency · filed 2001-09-25(1)

RJA § 6013(1) provides that “[i]nterest shall be allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action,” as provided in that section. ... For the purpose of the judgment interest statute, a money judgment is one that orders the payment of a sum of money, as distinguished from an order directing an act to be done or property to be restored or transferred. ... We conclude that the order directing return of the seized funds to Wilson was not a money judgment in a civil action under § 6013.

Section 600.6013 requires prejudgment interest when the statute applies, and a judgment based on statutory insurer liability rather than a written instrument is calculated under subsection (6), not subsection (5).

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Titan Insurance · filed 2002-09-10(6)

Here, the trial court awarded interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013(5), which concerns judgments rendered on a written instrument. Although the trial court properly awarded interest, we believe that the calculation of the interest should have been according to MCL 600.6013(6) rather than MCL 600.6013(5). We believe that the judgment here was not based on the “written instrument,” i.e., the insurance policy; rather, it was based on Titan’s liability under MCL 500.3115(2) as an insurer in equal priority, and thus the calculation of the interest due should have been undertaken according to MCL 600.6013(6).

Under § 600.6013(8), statutory interest on mediation sanctions accrues from the date the trial judge enters the order awarding the sanctions, rather than from the date the complaint was filed.

Ayar v. Foodland Distributors · filed 2004-09-29(8)

Because a judicial determination is required, we conclude that a claim for interest on mediation sanctions does not arise until the trial judge enters its order awarding sanctions. The trial court’s award authorizes interest for a period during which there was no fund in existence upon which to calculate interest. We are not persuaded that the Legislature intended such an illogical result ... under MCL 600.6013. McKelvie, supra at 339. Accordingly, the trial court erred in providing that statutory interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013 on the mediation award accrues from the date the original complaint was filed, October 7, 1993. Statutory interest on the mediation award should instead accrue from the date costs and mediation sanctions were awarded, June 24, 2002.

Section 600.6013(8) requires judgment interest on attorney fees and costs awarded as mediation sanctions to accrue from the filing of the complaint against the liable defendant.

Ayar v. Foodland Distributors · filed 2005-07-06(8)

Similarly, the statute makes no exception for attorney fees and costs ordered as mediation sanctions under MCR 2.403(0).

Section 600.6013 does not award prejudgment interest when an insurer timely and voluntarily pays an appraisal award without challenging it or requiring court intervention.

Griswold Properties, LLC v. Lexington Insurance · filed 2007-09-28(1)

We find that plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest under MCL 600.6013 because defendant timely and voluntarily paid the appraisal award without challenging the amount and without any intervention by the trial court.

Section 600.6013 provides prejudgment interest on past damages, calculated on the entire money judgment including attorney fees and costs, but excludes future damages; when past noneconomic damages exceed the cap, interest applies to the full capped amount.

Dawe v. Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Associates, PC · filed 2010-08-12(1), (8)

Once the jury awarded damages, [Dawe] was entitled to interest on her money judgment. MCL 600.6013(1). Although MCL 600.6013(8) provides that interest “is calculated on the entire amount of the money judgment, including attorney fees and other costs” from the filing of the complaint, MCL 600.6013(1) specifically excludes interest “on future damages from the date of filing the complaint to the date of entry of the judgment.” Hence, under a plain reading of MCL 600.6013, [Dawe] would normally be entitled to interest on the full amount of her past noneconomic damages. ... This problem can be avoided only by construing MCL 600.1483 in such a way as to minimize its effect on the application of MCL 600.6013. Hence, I construe MCL 600.1483(1) to reduce future noneconomic damages before past noneconomic damages. Where the jury finds that the plaintiff has past noneconomic damages in excess of the applicable cap, as is the case here, the plaintiff will be entitled to prejudgment interest on the full amount of the applicable cap under MCL 600.6013(1). However, where the past noneconomic damages do not rise to the level of the applicable cap, the plaintiff will only be entitled to interest on the actual amount of the past noneconomic damages found by the jury. In this way, the plaintiff will be fully compensated for the losses already suffered. ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred when it concluded that Dawe was only entitled to interest on a portion of the past noneconomic damages found by the jury. Therefore, we vacate the award of interest and remand this case to the trial court for recalculation of the interest.

Section 600.6013(8) allows a prevailing party to recover prejudgment interest on a money judgment beginning on the date the complaint is filed.

Stryker Corporation v. XL Insurance America · filed 2010-09-16(8)

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8) allows the prevailing party to recover prejudgment interest on a money judgment. ... Under § 600.6013(8), interest accrues from the date of the filing of the complaint. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted, in part, with respect to Plaintiffs’ entitlement to interest under § 600.6013(8), but will be denied without prejudice with respect to the amount.

Section 600.6013(7) does not permit a prevailing party to obtain contractual-rate statutory prejudgment interest when the jury already considered that same interest as damages, because doing so risks a double recovery.

Shekoohfar v. La Rosa · filed 2015-01-27(7)

We find that in this case, where defendants’ trial counsel expressly asked the jury to calculate and award interest at the contractual 9% rate from the date of the breach through the date of the verdict as an element of damages, a portion of which would have included the same interest awardable under MCL 600.6013(7), the trial court correctly ruled that defendants were not entitled to statutory interest at the rate specified in the contract pursuant to MCL 600.6013(7).

Section 600.6013(8) does not provide a basis for prejudgment interest to a party without a judgment in its favor.

Estate of Ezekiel D Goodwin v. Northwest Michigan Fair Association · filed 2018-07-03(8)

Likewise, absent a “judgment” in plaintiff’s favor, there is no basis for awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest as the prevailing party under MCL 600.6013(8).

Section 600.6013 permits prejudgment interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action, and the court applied it to award proportionally reduced interest on the plaintiff’s state-law forced-labor and unjust-enrichment damages.

Machhal v. Machhal · filed 2023-03-28

Pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013, which allows for prejudgment interest “on a money judgment recovered in a civil action,” if the Court awarded Plaintiff the entirety of the requested damages and restitution for unpaid wages/overtime, she would also seek prejudgment interest on these damages in the amount of $20,139.00. ... Therefore, instead of awarding Plaintiff $20,139.00 in prejudgment interest, she will be awarded $10,068.66 in prejudgment interest. ... Plaintiff will therefore be awarded $10,068.66 in prejudgment interest from October 16, 2021, to October 15, 2022, plus $6,661.81 in prejudgment interest from October 16, 2022, to March 28, 2023, for a total of $16,730.47 in prejudgment interest.

Section 600.6013 permits prejudgment interest on civil damage recoveries, running from the filing of the complaint through recovery.

Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant · filed 1992-04-29

The ADEA bars plaintiffs from recovering prejudgment interest while the Elliott-Larsen Act permits recovery of prejudgment interest from the date the complaint is filed. Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.6013 (providing prejudgment interest on all damage recoveries in civil actions); ... Since it is not possible for a jury to find a retaliatory discharge under the ADEA without also finding retaliation under the Elliott-Larsen Act, the district court erred in denying prejudgment interest.

Section 600.6013 supplies the interest rate for probate claims and counterclaims but does not independently authorize prejudgment interest in other probate proceedings.

Noble v. McNerney · filed 1988-01-19

We believe the Legislature intended in MCL 700.767; MSA 27.5767 to set forth all the circumstances in which prejudgment interest could be awarded in actions and proceedings in the probate court. After this Court’s decision in Cole Estate, the Legislature amended MCL 700.767; MSA 27.5767, 1982 PA 412, effective March 30, 1983, by incorporating MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. Under the amended statute, the latter provision is utilized to determine the applicable rate of interest which may be charged. However, the amendment did not alter the restriction that interest be awarded only on claims and counterclaims.

Section 600.6013’s remedial purpose supports applying a noneconomic damages cap without proportionately reducing past damages used to calculate prejudgment interest.

Shivers v. Schmiege · filed 2009-09-29

Although the majority opinion did not address this issue and decided the case on a different basis, Judge SMOLENSKTs dissent provides compelling reasoning on the issue. ... Although this solution appears equitable on its face, it is clear from its application that it significantly undermines the remedial purposes of MCL 600.6013. ... The trial court did not err by declining to proportionately reduce plaintiffs past and future noneconomic damages.

Section 600.6013(8) authorizes prejudgment interest under Michigan law.

Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company · filed 2024-05-24(8)

As for interest, Plaintiffs correctly note they are entitled to pre-judgment interest under Michigan law. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8).

Section 600.6013 applies separately to a garnishment action, so prejudgment interest runs from issuance of the writ to the garnishment judgment and postjudgment interest runs from entry of that judgment.

Luczak v. Corey a Drielick · filed 2021-04-09(8), (10)

Here, writs of garnishment were issued on December 4, 2000. Judgment on those writs entered on June 2, 2016. Although the writs were predicated upon the consent judgments awarded in the underlying actions, the writs themselves constitute a separate action. See MCR 3.101. Accordingly, the judgments on the writs of garnishment mark a separate date from which to calculate prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Similar to the Court of Appeals’ analysis of prejudgment interest on the underlying actions, prejudgment interest should be awarded from the dates the writs of garnishment were issued until the date the judgment on those writs entered. Postjudgment interest should also be awarded from the dates the judgment on those writs entered, as Empire has participated in and defended against the garnishment action.

After the complaint is filed, the statutory interest rate applies until the judgment is paid.

O'BRIEN v. Chateau Grand Travers, Ltd. · filed 1983-06-27

As to the period after the complaint is filed, the statutory rate of interest applies until the judgment is paid. Mich. Comp.Laws § 600.6013. The period from injury to the complaint’s filing, however, is not governed by any statutory rate, and the case law does not confine an award to any particular rate of interest.

Section 600.6013(6) requires statutory interest on a money judgment, calculated from the complaint's filing date at the rate specified by the statute.

Scrima v. Insurance Co. of North America (In Re Scrima) · filed 1990-09-21(6)

The plain language of M.C.L. § 600.6013 demonstrates that interest is mandatory. In subsection (1), the statute states in part: “Interest shall be allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action_” (emphasis added). The rate of interest is determined according to the date of the filing of the action, and runs from the commencement of the suit through satisfaction of judgment. Pursuant to the Erie doctrine and the Sixth Circuit’s decisions in American Anodco and Diggs, INA is entitled to interest pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.6013. ... The purpose of M.C.L. § 600.6013 is to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of its funds. ... Therefore, the date that prejudgment interest begins to accrue on INA’s damages is October 23, 1987, the date of the filing of the cross-claim. As such, subsection (6) of M.C.L. § 600.6013 is applicable. It states: ... Except as otherwise provided in subsection (5), for complaints filed on or after January 1, 1987, interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action shall be calculated at 6-month intervals from the date of filing the complaint at a rate of interest which is equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer, and compounded annually, pursuant to this section. ... INA is entitled to statutory interest pursuant to Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.6013(6), from October 23, 1987 through entry of judgment by the District Court.

Section 600.6013 permits prejudgment interest to be abated during an appeal when the judgment debtor was not responsible for the delay.

Dedes v. Asch · filed 1999-03-12(6)

Therefore, because the fault for the delay is not properly attributable to defendants, the trial court erred in granting prejudgment interest for the period that the matter was on appeal. We remand to the trial court for it to recalculate interest from the time of the filing of the complaint until the judgment is satisfied, abating the interest for the period that the matter was on appeal.