liquidated claim in Washington

2004Weyerhaeuser, 142 Wash.2d at 685 , 15 P.3d 115 ; Prier, 74 Wash.2d at 33 , 442 P.2d 621 . "[T]he defendant's belief that he or she never owed the money in the first place has never been an excuse for avoiding interest on a liquidated claim." Colonial Imports v. Carlton N.W., Inc., 83 Wash.App. 229, 247 , 921 P.2d 575 (1996) (citing Prier, 74 Wash.2d at 34 , 442 P.2d 621 ).

2004Weyerhaeuser, 142 Wn.2d at 685 ; Prier, 74 Wn.2d at 33 . “[T]he defendant’s belief that he or she never owed the money in the first place has never been an excuse for avoiding interest on a liquidated claim.” Colonial Imports v. Carlton N.W., Inc., 83 Wn.

2009And "a liquidated claim remains so even if the defendant is partially successful in reducing his or her share of liability." Id. at 144, 84 P.3d 286 . ¶ 58 The claim here was for attorney fees under an attorney fee agreement.

2008Indeed, "a liquidated claim remains so even if the defendant is partially successful in reducing his or her share of liability." Hadley v. Maxwell, 120 Wash.App. 137, 144 , 84 P.3d 286 (2004).

2008Indeed, “a liquidated claim remains so even if the defendant is partially successful in reducing his or her share of liability.” Hadley v. Maxwell, 120 Wn.

2008Indeed, "a liquidated claim remains so even if the defendant is partially successful in reducing his or her share of liability." Hadley v. Maxwell, 120 Wash.App. 137, 144 , 84 P.3d 286 (2004).

2025Under those circumstances, the amount of a liquidated claim may be reduced by the amount of an unliquidated counterclaim, and interest is “payable on only the amount remaining after setoff.” Gemini Farms LLC v. Smith-Kem Ellensburg, Inc., 104 Wn.

2025App. 267, 269 , 16 P.3d 82 (2001); see also Mall Tool, 45 Wn.2d at 177 .

2007A liquidated claim is one "where the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion." Car Wash Enter., *50 Inc. v. Kampanos, 74 Wash.App. 537, 548-49 , 874 P.2d 868 (1994), quoting King County v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 70 Wash. App. 58, 61 , 852 P.2d 313 , review denied, 122 Wash.2d 1017 , 863 P.2d 1352 (1993).

2007A liquidated claim is one "where the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion." Car Wash Enter., *50 Inc. v. Kampanos, 74 Wash.App. 537, 548-49 , 874 P.2d 868 (1994), quoting King County v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 70 Wash. App. 58, 61 , 852 P.2d 313 , review denied, 122 Wash.2d 1017 , 863 P.2d 1352 (1993).

2007A liquidated claim exists when "the amount of prejudgment interest can be determined from the evidence with exactness and without reliance on opinion or discretion." Bostain, 159 Wash.2d at 723 , 153 P.3d 846 (citing Hansen, 107 Wash.2d at 472 , 730 P.2d 662 ). "`A dispute over the claim, in whole or in part, does not change the character of a liquidated claim to unliquidated.'" Id. (quoting Hansen, 107 Wash.2d at 472 , 730 P.2d 662 ).

2007A liquidated claim exists when “the amount of prejudgment interest can be determined from the evidence with exactness and without reliance on opinion or discretion.” Bostain, 159 Wn.2d at 723 (citing Hansen, 107 Wn.2d at 472 ). “ ‘A dispute over the claim, in whole or in part, does not change the character of a liquidated claim to unliquidated.’ ” Id. (quoting Hansen, 107 Wn.2d at 472 ).

2007A liquidated claim is one "where the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion." Car Wash Enter., *50 Inc. v. Kampanos, 74 Wash.App. 537, 548-49 , 874 P.2d 868 (1994), quoting King County v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 70 Wash. App. 58, 61 , 852 P.2d 313 , review denied, 122 Wash.2d 1017 , 863 P.2d 1352 (1993).

2007A liquidated claim is one "" "where the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.’ ” Car Wash Enters., Inc. v. Kampanos, 74 Wn.

2001A liquidated claim is one whose "exact amount is fixed and known." Prier, 74 Wash.2d at 32 , 442 P.2d 621 . [87] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 197 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 . [88] City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 196 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 , 132 L.Ed.2d 148 (1995) (holding neither a good faith dispute over liability nor the existence of mutual fault justifies denying prejudgment interest in an admiralty collision case); see also Thomas J.

2001A liquidated claim is one whose "exact amount is fixed and known." Prier, 74 Wash.2d at 32 , 442 P.2d 621 . [87] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 197 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 . [88] City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 196 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 , 132 L.Ed.2d 148 (1995) (holding neither a good faith dispute over liability nor the existence of mutual fault justifies denying prejudgment interest in an admiralty collision case); see also Thomas J.

1981Seattle v. Dyad Constr., Inc., 17 Wn.

1979Seattle v. Dyad Constr., Inc., 17 Wn.

2025Supply, 89 Wn.

2018Dautel, 89 Wn.

2015Inc.. 21 Wn.

2013“A liquidated claim is one where the evidence furnishes data ‘which, if believed, make it possible to compute the amount due with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.’ ” Id. (quoting Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.

2013"A liquidated claim is one where the evidence furnishes data 'which, if believed, make it possible to compute the amount due with 28 No. 30544-9-111 Hidalgo v. Barker exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.'" Id. (quoting Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.

2007Magana, 123 Wash.App. at 313 , 94 P.3d 987 .

2007A liquidated claim exists when "the amount of prejudgment interest can be determined from the evidence with exactness and without reliance on opinion or discretion." Bostain, 159 Wash.2d at 723 , 153 P.3d 846 (citing Hansen, 107 Wash.2d at 472 , 730 P.2d 662 ). "`A dispute over the claim, in whole or in part, does not change the character of a liquidated claim to unliquidated.'" Id. (quoting Hansen, 107 Wash.2d at 472 , 730 P.2d 662 ).

2007Magana, 123 Wash.App. at 313 , 94 P.3d 987 .

2001Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law § 5-21, at 246 (3d ed. 2000) ("The Supreme Court has decided that awarding prejudgment interest is a basic principle of admiralty law and is not a penalty."). [89] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195-96 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 . [90] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 ; Jones v. Spentonbush-Red Star Co., 155 F.3d 587, 593 (2d Cir.1998). [91] 358 U.S. 588 , 79 S.Ct. 503 , 3 L.Ed.2d 524 (1959). [92] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 592 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [93] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 593 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [94] 138 Wash. 390 , 244 P. 723 (1926). [95] Roswall, 138 Wash. at 397 , 244 P

2001Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law § 5-21, at 246 (3d ed. 2000) ("The Supreme Court has decided that awarding prejudgment interest is a basic principle of admiralty law and is not a penalty."). [89] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195-96 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 . [90] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 ; Jones v. Spentonbush-Red Star Co., 155 F.3d 587, 593 (2d Cir.1998). [91] 358 U.S. 588 , 79 S.Ct. 503 , 3 L.Ed.2d 524 (1959). [92] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 592 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [93] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 593 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [94] 138 Wash. 390 , 244 P. 723 (1926). [95] Roswall, 138 Wash. at 397 , 244 P

2001Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law § 5-21, at 246 (3d ed. 2000) ("The Supreme Court has decided that awarding prejudgment interest is a basic principle of admiralty law and is not a penalty."). [89] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195-96 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 . [90] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 ; Jones v. Spentonbush-Red Star Co., 155 F.3d 587, 593 (2d Cir.1998). [91] 358 U.S. 588 , 79 S.Ct. 503 , 3 L.Ed.2d 524 (1959). [92] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 592 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [93] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 593 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [94] 138 Wash. 390 , 244 P. 723 (1926). [95] Roswall, 138 Wash. at 397 , 244 P

2001Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law § 5-21, at 246 (3d ed. 2000) ("The Supreme Court has decided that awarding prejudgment interest is a basic principle of admiralty law and is not a penalty."). [89] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195-96 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 . [90] Cement Div., 515 U.S. at 195 , 115 S.Ct. 2091 ; Jones v. Spentonbush-Red Star Co., 155 F.3d 587, 593 (2d Cir.1998). [91] 358 U.S. 588 , 79 S.Ct. 503 , 3 L.Ed.2d 524 (1959). [92] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 592 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [93] Tungus, 358 U.S. at 593 , 79 S.Ct. 503 . [94] 138 Wash. 390 , 244 P. 723 (1926). [95] Roswall, 138 Wash. at 397 , 244 P

1996In Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co. 110 U.S. 174, 176 , 3 S.Ct. 570, 571-72 , 28 L.Ed. 109 (1884) the United States Supreme Court disallowed prejudgment interest on a liquidated claim where the claimant had unreasonably delayed prosecution of his claim.

1996In Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co. 110 U.S. 174, 176 , 3 S.Ct. 570, 571-72 , 28 L.Ed. 109 (1884) the United States Supreme Court disallowed prejudgment interest on a liquidated claim where the claimant had unreasonably delayed prosecution of his claim.

1996A liquidated claim occurs when the "evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount [owed] with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.’ ” Kiewit-Grice v. State, 77 Wn.

1996App. 867, 872 , 895 P.2d 6 (quoting Prier v. Refrigeration Eng’g Co., 74 Wn.2d 25, 32 , 442 P.2d 621 (1968)), review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1018 (1995).

1996We reject this contention for two reasons: first, the lease does not require Ernst to provide any particular type of information; second, the landlord testified at trial that none of the information presented at trial would have changed the decision not to consent, even if the information had been presented at some earlier time. [12] In his concurring opinion, infra, Judge Forrest challenges abuse of discretion as the standard of review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny prejudgment interest, pointing out that Curtis, 69 Wash.App. at 20 , 847 P.2d 507 , which we cite for that proposi

1996We reject this contention for two reasons: first, the lease does not require Ernst to provide any particular type of information; second, the landlord testified at trial that none of the information presented at trial would have changed the decision not to consent, even if the information had been presented at some earlier time. [12] In his concurring opinion, infra, Judge Forrest challenges abuse of discretion as the standard of review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny prejudgment interest, pointing out that Curtis, 69 Wash.App. at 20 , 847 P.2d 507 , which we cite for that proposi