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.