Opinion ID: 1971395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Erroneous Factual Finding Claim

Text: Gamles next claims that the Superior Court erred in finding that Gibson Sr.'s employer had made no payment responsive to the wage attachment since 2000, As we have noted, [i]n a nonjury case in which a Superior Court Judge sits as the finder of fact, an appeal from this decision is upon both the law and the facts. [18] In such an appeal this Court has the authority to review the entire record and to make its own findings of fact in a proper case. [19] We will not disturb the Superior Court's factual findings if they are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical reasoning process. [20] The Superior Court found that Gibson Sr.'s employer stopped payment in 2000, and that Gamles failed to take advantage of legal remedies available to it in order to recover the remaining balance. Specifically, for four years Gamles neglected either [to] seek enforcement of the writ and/or renew judgment against [the Gibsons] [21] as interest continued to accrue on the debt. That being the case, the Superior Court determined that it cannot now order [the Gibsons] to pay interest that has accrued since [Gamles'] failure to actively enforce the judgment. [22] The finding that Gibson, Sr. ceased making payments after 2000 is factually erroneous, and the Gibsons so concede. In his brief, Gibson, Sr. represents that his wages continued to be garnished from 2000 to 2006 for a total of $45, 225.20 and briefly in 2007 for $658.88. In addition, Gibson, Sr. made $9,703.00 in direct payments. Thus, no factual basis existed for the Superior Court's conclusion that it cannot now order [the Gibsons] to pay interest that has accrued since [Gamles] [failed] to actively enforce the judgment. That conclusion rests on the incorrect finding that Gibson, Sr.'s employer stopped payment in 2000, and that Gamles had neglected to seek enforcement of and/or renew the judgment against Gibson, Sr. Because the Superior Court's factual finding in that regard is not supported by the record, it must be overturned.