Cold Spring Construction v. Spikes

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

Judge William Skretny

A participant in Cold Spring's profit sharing plan died in 2010. On Dec. 31, decedent's account held $61,032.08. Consistent with counsel's Dec. 7, 2012, request, district court ordered interpleader-plaintiff Cold Spring to deposit $61,032.08 "plus statutory interest." Depositing $61,032.08, Cold Spring sought the order's amendment, claiming counsel mistakenly requested to deposit statutory interest. Counsel attested he meant to ask that Cold Spring deposit the disputed proceeds "with accrued interest to date." Treating Cold Spring's motion as brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) the court granted amendment. By its interpleader action Cold Spring sought to ensure proper distribution of funds it holds. Thus counsel's request for payment of statutory interest would work an injustice on the disinterested stakeholder, and provide defendants a windfall. However, the court could not be sure that documents indicating accrual of $563.63 interest represented an accurate calculation. Thus, it held Cold Spring's dismissal premature. The court reinstated Cold Spring as a party until the full amount in dispute is calculated, approved, and deposited, at which point Cold Spring's request for attorney fees will be considered.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202597568508

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.