Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, Bing Construction Company of Nevada contested a lower court's judgment involving a claim for additional compensation due to contract delays against Vasey-Scott Engineering Company and others. The lower court awarded Bing $26,000, a fraction of the $136,000 claimed. The Supreme Court of Nevada identified a procedural deficiency in that the lower court did not provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), for the monetary award. The Supreme Court emphasized that while detailed damage itemization was unnecessary, categorizations were essential for proper judicial review. Furthermore, the appellant argued the lower court's refusal to grant pre-judgment interest was erroneous. Citing NRS 99.040, the Supreme Court directed that, upon remand, the lower court must ascertain the due date of the monetary award and apply an interest rate of 8% per annum from that date. The initial judgment was upheld in other aspects, but the case was remanded for clarification on the monetary award and interest calculation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Pre-Judgment Interest under NRS 99.040subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the lower court should calculate pre-judgment interest at 8% per annum from the date the money became due, as per NRS 99.040, upon remand.
Reasoning: Under NRS 99.040, pre-judgment interest is permissible unless specified otherwise in writing. The Supreme Court ruled that on remand, the lower court must determine when the awarded money became due and calculate interest at 8% per annum from that date.
Requirements for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the lower court's judgment lacked adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by NRCP 52(a), thus necessitating a remand for further proceedings.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Nevada found that the lower court failed to provide adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the monetary award, violating NRCP 52(a), which mandates specificity in non-jury trials.