Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1

Section 15-1-1 does not create an interest-bearing debt for delayed performance until a breach of contract occurs.

Bernina Distributors, Inc. v. Bernina Sewing MacHine Co., Inc. · filed 1981-06-02

We agree with the trial court that no debt could arise under the statute until a breach of contract occurred.

Section 15-1-1 sets a 10 percent legal rate of interest under its 1981 amendment, applied from the date payment is due to the judgment date.

Davies v. Olson · filed 1987-11-24

The 1981 amendment to section 15-1-1 increased the legal rate of interest from 6 percent to 10 percent. Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (1986). ... Based on this factual determination, we find the appropriate rate of interest is 10 percent.

Section 15-1-1 supplies the legal interest rate when the parties have not agreed on a specified rate.

Ringwood v. Foreign Auto Works, Inc. · filed 1990-01-02

Utah law provides that the legal rate is applicable in instances where the parties have not agreed on a specified rate. Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (1986). We, therefore, conclude that the court did not err in awarding interest at the legal rate on Pog-gio’s judgment against Gardner and Hernandez.

Section 15-1-1 sets the interest rate when interest is otherwise owed and no rate has been agreed to; it does not independently create a right to interest.

Vali Convalescent & Care Institutions v. Division of Health Care Financing · filed 1990-07-27

The district court held that § 15-1-1 does nothing more than define what the rate of interest should be in those instances where interest accrues as a matter of law but no specific rate has been agreed to; it does not create a right to interest where none otherwise exists. We agree.

Section 15-1-1(2) requires interest at the legal rate of 10% per year unless the parties specify a different rate; a large accumulated award is no exception.

Mont Trucking, Inc. v. Entrada Industries, Inc. · filed 1990-12-07(2)

Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1(2) (Supp.1990) provides: “Unless parties to a lawful contract specify a different rate of interest, the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or chose in action shall be 10% per annum.” The trial judge, therefore, was required as a matter of law to award the statutorily mandated rate. There is no exception for interest otherwise owing simply because, with the passage of time, the award has become significant in amount.

Section 15-1-1 permits parties to replace the default 10% interest rate on a contract or breach claim with an expressly agreed rate.

Virginia v. Dillard · filed 2023-10-19

In this instance, the highest rate Utah law permits is whatever interest rate contracting parties expressly specify. Recovering prejudgment and post-judgment interest at this rate from Mr. Dillard is therefore appropriate.

Section 15-1-1(2) supplies a ten-percent prejudgment interest rate for unpaid contract wages.

Baker v. Dataphase, Inc. · filed 1992-01-17(2)

Additionally, each plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of ten percent.

Section 15-1-1(1) sets a 10 percent annual prejudgment interest rate for breach of contract claims; it does not support such a claim when no breach of contract claim was pursued.

Nielsen v. O'REILLY · filed 1992-11-13(1)

Section 15-1-1(1) establishes the legal rate of prejudgment interest in a breach of contract as 10 percent per annum. The difficulty with this argument is that Nielsen did not pursue a breach of contract claim against Metropolitan.

Section 15-1-1 sets a 10% prejudgment interest rate for the state law recovery.

Marchese v. Nelson · filed 1993-01-06

The current pre-judgment interest rate established under Utah law is 10%.

Section 15-1-1’s prejudgment interest rate is not a vested contract term; properly promulgated Board rates apply to overdue school trust land royalties during the periods when those rates are in effect.

Trail Mountain Coal Co. v. Utah Division of State Lands & Forestry · filed 1996-06-28

Laws dictating the particular rate of prejudgment interest on delinquent sums are not vested contractual rights. ... Therefore, in light of our holding in Consolidation Coal, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the trial court’s assessment of six percent prejudgment interest for the entire balance of Trail Mountain’s overdue payments and remand with instructions to assess the properly promulgated Board rates of prejudgment interest and penalties for the period during which they were applicable.

Section 15-1-1 supplies a ten percent annual legal rate for calculating prejudgment interest.

Castillo v. Atlanta Casualty Co. · filed 1997-06-12

At the legal rate of ten percent per annum, this amounts to $97.89 in interest. See Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (1996).

Section 15-1-1 set Utah’s default prejudgment interest rate at 10% in 1999; the court calculated that interest as simple interest.

Commonwealth v. Settlement Funding, L.L.C. · filed 2008-06-09

The default rate of prejudgment interest in 1999 in Utah was 10%. Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (1985). However, the Utah Code does not specify whether the interest is calculated as simple interest or compound interest. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes Utah calculates prejudgment interest as simple interest.

Section 15-1-1 provides a 10% annual rate that the court may use for prejudgment interest.

Krum v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance · filed 2013-04-24

The prejudgment interest rate of 10% per annum provided by Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 is the most appropriate rate for this award.

Section 15-1-1(2)’s 10% default interest rate applies to refunds of fees that are more like contractual obligations than taxes.

Highlands at Jordanelle, LLC v. Wasatch County · filed 2015-07-09(2)

Because the lump-sum fees in this context were more similar to a contract than to a tax, we conclude that the trial court was correct to apply the statutory default interest rate for most contracts, including this one, i.e., 10% per year.

Section 15-1-1 sets the interest rate for the categories of contracts it identifies; it does not determine whether a party is entitled to prejudgment interest.

Beckman v. Cybertary Franchising LLC · filed 2018-03-22(2)

Contrary to Cybertary’s argument, this provision does not dictate whether a party is entitled to prejudgment interest. ... Instead, section 15-1-1 identifies the particular interest rate that applies to those categories of contracts identified in the statute.

Section 15-1-1 supports prejudgment interest on unpaid invoices from the date of each invoice.

LRM Trucking v. Baxter Trucking · filed 2020-12-21

A final default judgment against Baxter Trucking on LRM’s first cause of action will be entered in the amount of $25,300.00, plus prejudgment interest of $3,409.13 under Utah Code Ann. §15-1-1 from the date of each invoice through November 24, 2020.

Section 15-1-1 does not apply retroactively; its 2016 version provides 10% annual prejudgment interest on a chose in action unless the parties specify a different rate.

Western Surety Company v. Commercial Coatings · filed 2021-02-19(2)

Section 15-1-1 does not indicate that it applies retroactively. Thus, the court applies the previous version of Section 15-1-1. The previous version of the statute provided that “[u]nless parties to a lawful contract specify a different rate of interest, the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or chose in action shall be 10% annum.” Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1(2) (2016). ... Therefore, Western is entitled to a prejudgment interest rate of 10% per annum under the previous version of Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1(2).

Under the pre-2019 version of § 15-1-1(2), an agreement involving a loan qualifies for the 10% prejudgment interest rate.

Diversified Striping v. Kraus · filed 2022-07-21(2)

We further agree with FLJ that the $14,003.22 qualifies for the 10% interest rate under Utah Code section 15-1-1(2). Based on the Beck Parties’ concession that the Asset Purchase Agreement “does involve a loan,” we conclude that the 10% interest rate applies.

Section 15-1-1 authorizes prejudgment interest for breach-of-contract claims but does not displace Utah’s existing rules on lost-profit damages.

Synchrony Bank v. Cabinets To Go, LLC · filed 2024-07-23

The Utah legislature explicitly authorizes prejudgment interest for claims for breaches of contract under Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (West), which was amended after ClearOne, and governs the present question of prejudgment interest. ... However, the relevant statute is silent as to whether such prejudgment interest is applicable to damages for lost profits, nor does it alter Utah’s existing case law on this question.

When a note leaves the default interest rate unspecified, Section 15-1-1(2) supplies a ten percent annual rate for the period of default.

Harrington Properties, Inc. v. Peterson · filed 1999-02-04(2)

We conclude the terms of the 1991 Peterson Note, when read in conjunction with the December 1992 agreement, mandate that Peterson is due default interest on the original $95,000 Peterson Note at ten percent, but only during the period of actual default that existed between when the Peterson Note was first due and when the parties agreed to a revised due date, i.e., from March 1992 to December 8,1992.

Section 15-1-1(2) supplies a ten percent interest rate on amounts due under a lease when the lease specifies no interest rate.

Young v. Young · filed 1999-04-20(2)

Because the 1987 farm lease contains no provision concerning interest, section 15-1-1(2) applies, and the trial court properly calculated interest at ten percent on the amounts due under the lease.

Section 15-1-1 preserves the six percent prejudgment interest rate for contracts executed before 1981 rather than applying the later ten percent rate.

Breuer-Harrison, Inc. v. Combe · filed 1990-09-24(1)

Finally, we agree with the Combes' assertion that the trial court miscalculated the rate of prejudgment interest at ten per cent, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1 (1986). [7] The contract was executed prior to 1981 and therefore, prejudgment interest should accrue at six per cent per annum, not ten per cent.

Section 15-1-1(3) excludes contracts made before May 14, 1981, from the ten percent interest rate; the earlier six percent rate applies to those contracts.

Trail Mountain Coal Co. v. Utah Division of State Lands & Forestry · filed 1994-10-27(3)

However, the current ten percent interest rate does not apply “to any contract or obligations made before May 14, 1981.” ... Rather, contracts entered into before that date are subject to the earlier statutory rate of six percent. ... The trial court properly awarded prejudgment interest at the applicable statutory rate of six percent, and correctly denied the assessment of late fees.

The version of Section 15-1-1 in effect before May 14, 2019, applies to a contract breach that occurred before that date.

Hudson Insurance v. Triple T Construction · filed 2021-10-06

The Defendants’ first breach of the Indemnity Agreement (when the Defendants failed to pay the $50,000 that Hudson demanded) predates this effective date by nearly a month. Therefore, the previous version of section 15-1-1 applies.

Section 15-1-1 does not prevent the State Land Board from setting interest rates for late payments on school trust land leases under its authority to manage those lands.

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Utah Division of State Lands & Forestry · filed 1994-12-02

We therefore decline to construe section 15-1-1 as broadly, or the Board's authority as narrowly, as Consol would have us do. We instead choose to harmonize the interest rate provision with the provisions governing school trust lands by holding that the Board has the power to set rules and regulations consistent with its duty to manage school trust lands.

Section 15-1-1 did not entitle an investor to prejudgment interest on his principal investment where he failed to address the applicable version’s loan-or-forbearance requirement.

Hafen v. Howell · filed 2024-11-15

The Howells offer us the same argument they did to the district court, ignoring the statutory shortcomings the district court identified. ... Because the Howells have failed to show Les has a right to interest on his principal investment, we reach the same conclusion as the district court and affirm the denial of prejudgment interest for Les.

Section 15-1-1 does not provide for interest outside the contract setting.

Whitney v. Faulkner · filed 2004-06-25

However, section 15-1-1 does not provide for the payment of interest outside of the contract setting, although Wasatch Mining does.

Section 15-1-1(2)’s ten percent interest rate applies to judgments arising from contracts for the loan or forbearance of money, goods, or a chose in action, but not to tort judgments.

Fuller v. Bohne · filed 2017-02-09(2)

Given the statute’s limited reach, it follows that it does not apply where, as here, the judgment is based on tort claims.

Section 15-1-1’s interest rate for a loan or forbearance does not entitle an investor to interest on a Silver Pool investment.

Hafen v. Howell · filed 2023-02-23

Les argues he is additionally owed statutory interest. He is incorrect. ... The court, similarly, finds no legal basis to award Les interest on his “investment,” indeed, the court has already barred claims for interest against the Receivership Estate. ... The version of section 15-1-1 that was effective during the Howells’ “investment” period said that “the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or chose in action shall be 10% annum.” ... Les does not explain how his Silver Pool investment fits this statutory text.

Section 15-1-1 preserves the right to collect interest at the statutory rate even when the parties agreed to a contractual rate.

Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC · filed 2016-03-21(2)

Because Utah’s statute does not contain such language, parties contracting for a rate of interest under that statute do not lose their right to collect interest at the statutory rate.

Section 15-1-1(1) generally permits parties to contract for any interest rate.

Sims v. Opportunity Financial, LLC · filed 2021-04-13(1)

Those authorities predated Utah’s 1985 adoption of Utah Code § 15-1-1, which, as just detailed, generally permits parties to contract for any rate of interest.

Section 15-1-1 permits parties to a lawful contract to agree on any interest rate for a loan or forbearance.

Knight Adjustment Bureau v. Lewis · filed 2010-02-19(1)

Under Utah law, "parties to a lawful contract may agree upon any rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or chose in action that is the subject of their contract." Utah Code Ann. § 15-1-1(1) (2009). ... Pursuant to the Agreement, Lewis agreed to pay 21.17% per annum on his car loan, including during the period after default until paid in full.

Section 15-1-1(2) allows parties to a lawful contract to specify an interest rate different from the default 10% rate, including for a breach of contract claim.

AVT Nevada LP v. McAlary · filed 2025-05-28(2)

Because the parties expressly agreed to this rate, it is appropriate for Plaintiff to recover prejudgment and post-judgment interest at 18% from Defendant.

Section 15-1-1(1) permits parties to a lawful written loan contract to agree on any interest rate.

Capital Stack UT v. Reddy · filed 2025-07-10(1)

But what other states have done is not determinative here. The Utah Legislature has made clear that “[t]he parties to a lawful written . . . contract may agree upon any rate of interest for the contract, including a contract for . . . a loan.” Utah Code § 15-1-1(1) (emphasis added).