Justice Eileen Bransten
Clothing designer Adeli executed a personal guaranty of a CIT Group loan taken out through her company. The guaranty provided for recovery of all costs and fees incurred in enforcing the debt, including attorney fees. Adeli's business partner, Sachs, purchased the debt from CIT, after Adeli defaulted, and sought to enforce the guaranty. Sachs obtained summary judgment on the guaranty, and sought to enforce his right to attorney fees. A special referee recommended the court grant his request for same, but also recommended that any interest on amounts already paid to attorneys be denied. Sachs moved to confirm the award of attorney fees, but sought rejection of the denial of interest. The court reviewed the referee's report and found it should be confirmed, with one exception, stating given the evidence submitted regarding invoices and checks, and the parties' stipulation that all attorney invoices submitted to Sachs were paid, interest should be awarded. It stated there was no meaningful difference between "collecting" on a judgment, and "compelling a person to pay" according to the provisions of the guaranty. Thus, the court confirmed the referee's recommendation that Sachs receive attorney fees, but rejected the recommendation regarding interest, awarding same to Sachs.
