Miss. R. App. P. 37
Unless otherwise provided by law, if a judgment for money in a civil case is affirmed, whatever interest is allowed by law shall be payable from the date judgment was entered in the court or commission below. If a judgment is modified or reversed with direction that a judgment for money be entered in the court below, the mandate shall contain instructions with respect to the allowance of interest.
Miss. R. App. P. 37
Advisory Committee Historical Note
Effective January 1, 1995, Miss.R.App.P. 37 replaced Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 37. 644-647 So.2d LXXVII-LXXVIII (West Miss.Cases 1994).
Effective July 1, 1994, the second paragraph of the Comment to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 37 was rewritten to enhance clarity. 632-635 So.2d LIV (West Miss.Cases 1994).
Comment
In determining the date interest is payable, this rule basically follows former Mississippi practice and case law. Porter v. Ainsworth, 288 So. 2d 709, 710 (Miss. 1974); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Stafford, 253 So. 2d 388, 393 (Miss. 1971).
Unless otherwise provided by law, if a judgment for money in a civil case is affirmed, interest will be payable from the date judgment was entered in the court or commission below. However, if the judgment affirmed provides for payments on a future date, the judgment is deemed, for the purpose of this rule only, to have been entered on that date. Brand v. Brand, 482 So. 2d 236, 237-38 (Miss. 1974) (interest on past due child support payable from the date each past due payment became due).
The final sentence of Rule 37 is a departure from prior law. See Grice v. General Electric Power Ass'n, 230 Miss. 437, 456-458, 96 So. 2d 909, 911 (1957); Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So. 2d 47, 60-63 (Miss. 1985). Those cases established the rule that when the Supreme Court reverses a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and renders a judgment for money, the prevailing party can only collect pre-mandate interest on the amount of the verdict if a judgment was entered on that verdict before the trial court set it aside. Federal practice rejects this technical distinction. Following federal practice, this rule grants the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals authority to use its mandate to control awards of interest when a judgment is modified or reversed with directions that a judgment for money be entered in the court below. In cases where interest is simply overlooked in the mandate, a party who claims entitlement to interest from a date other than the date of entry of judgment in accordance with the mandate should be entitled to seek recall of the mandate for determination of the question.
.