He's a schmartie, that Judge Cope (pictured above).
Back in 2009 he realized that it's pretty stupid that a trial court can't reserve on prejudgment interest, like it can on attorney's fees, and if it does the whole darn question of prejudgment interest will be waived if an appeal is taken.
So he and the 3d suggested -- very politely of course -- that maybe kinda oughta you know the Supremes should perhaps revisit the issue, and indeed, to their credit, they have:
The application of the McGurn rule has resulted in the inadvertent waiver of prejudgment interest where the trial court, often at the behest of the parties, enters a final judgment but reserves jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest. Because we conclude that the trial court should be allowed to decide the issue of prejudgment interest separately, we recede from McGurn and answer the following rephrased certified question in the affirmative:Isn't it nice to see solid rationality and logic from our judiciary sometimes?
SHOULD A TRIAL COURT BE ALLOWED TO RESERVE JURISDICTION IN A FINAL JUDGMENT TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST?In answering this rephrased certified question in the affirmative, our intent is to promote judicial economy and prevent unfairness to either party. We conclude that a final judgment reserving jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest is a final appealable order but that the trial court does not lose jurisdiction to determine prejudgment interest in a manner similar to that in which the trial court addresses attorneys‟ fees and costs.