Here's a strong opening to a decision over $994, from 4/3's "Bill" -- but it's not Beds:
This appeal is just the latest of a series of appeals arising out of these parties’ shared commitment to litigating against each other. While significant disputes have been aired in some of the prior appeals, this one is a fight about $994 – a fight to which both sides have dedicated time and resources worth far in excess of that amount. And it is now a fight which has diverted this court from addressing the real and significant disputes of other litigants. Indeed, at the trial court level, appellant [] openly suggested respondent [] was wasting court resources by even seeking the relief from which he now appeals. He apparently views that issue differently when he is on the losing side of that $994.
| Add: When appealing over $994... |
[Appellant] is appealing an order that allowed [Respondent] to offset the remaining $994 of a sanction award she has refused to pay him voluntarily, against a judgment (assigned to her by a third party) which he has refused to pay voluntarily for years. [Appellant] claims the moral high ground on the basis that [Respondent]’s failure to pay sanctions is somehow more reprehensible than his failure to pay a judgment. We have no occasion to assess the parties’ relative reprehensibility, but if we did, we would not hesitate to suggest everyone should spend some significant time washing their hands.
Posts
