THOMPSON, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Crisler v. Haugabook, 307 Ga.App. 796, 706 S.E.2d 184 (2011), and posed this question: Whether a party must make a prayer for prejudgment interest under OCGA § 7-4-15 and, if so, whether it can be made without leave of court following the grant of summary judgment.

This case made two appearances in the Court of Appeals. In the first appearance, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Crislers and directed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Haugabook on a claim for money had and received. Haugabook v. Crisler, 297 Ga.App. 428, 677 S.E.2d 355 (2009). Upon return of the remittitur, the trial court entered summary judgment for Haugabook as directed.1 Thereupon, Haugabook filed an amendment to his complaint, adding a prayer for prejudgment interest under OCGA § 7-4-15, and a motion for entry of final judgment awarding prejudgment interest. The Crislers opposed the motion, pointing out that Haugabook did not seek prejudgment interest in his original complaint, and that Haugabook's amendment to his complaint seeking such interest was made without leave of court.2 The trial court entered final judgment for Haugabook, awarding him the principal amount of his claim and prejudgment interest at the legal rate and the Crislers appealed, asserting the trial court erred in awarding Haugabook prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed and we granted the Crislers' petition for a writ of certiorari.

OCGA § 7-4-15 provides, in pertinent part: "All liquidated demands, where by agreement or otherwise the sum to be paid is fixed or certain, bear interest from the time the party shall become liable and bound to pay them; if payable on demand, they shall bear interest from the time of the demand." Under this statute, prejudgment interest— which flows automatically from a liquidated demand—is to be awarded upon a judgment for a liquidated amount. Thus, as long as there is a demand for prejudgment interest prior to the entry of final judgment, a trial court should award it. Compare Holloway v. State Farm Fire etc., Co., 245 Ga.App. 319, 322, 537 S.E.2d 121 (2000) (award of prejudgment interest for liquidated damages is mandatory, not discretionary, and awarded as a matter of law) with First Bank & Trust Co. v. Insurance Service Assn., 154 Ga.App. 697, 699(4), 269 S.E.2d 527 (1980) (trial court did not err in failing to include prejudgment interest in granting summary judgment in absence of demand in complaint or amendment thereto). See also Anderson v. State of Georgia, 2 Ga. 370 (1847) (one who wrongfully detains the money of another is chargeable with interest from the time he detains it and trial court did not err in instructing jury it should allow interest upon liquidated amount). The only requirement for a prejudgment interest award upon a liquidated damages claim is a demand. First Bank & Trust Co., supra.3 That is because the party opposing the award must be given an opportunity to contest it prior to the entry of judgment. Inasmuch as Crisler was given an opportunity to contest the award by opposing Haugabook's amendment and motion for the entry of final judgment, the award of prejudgment interest was proper. See OCGA § 9-11-54(c)(1) ("Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings; but the court shall not give the successful party relief, though he may be entitled to it, where the propriety of the relief was not litigated and the opposing party had no opportunity to assert defenses to such relief.").

Stuckey Health Care v. State of Ga., 193 Ga.App. 771, 389 S.E.2d 349 (1989), upon which Crisler relies, is inapposite and does not demand a contrary ruling. In Stuckey, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to amend the complaint to seek prejudgment interest after the grant of summary judgment was affirmed on appeal. However, the primary claim in that case—to recover for reimbursement of Medicaid payments—was not liquidated.

We note, in passing, that Crisler would not have been warranted in opposing a motion to amend to seek prejudgment interest even if, as Crisler insists, such a motion should have been made formally.4 "A party may hardly resist an amendment curing a defectively stated claim on the ground that it will expose him to a possible liability; he may no more successfully oppose the amendment of an ad damnum clause on the ground that it will place him at peril of an increased liability." Poloron Products v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, 72 F.R.D. 556, 561 (1976).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.