Court Opinion

ID: 9692972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:14:27.850909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:38.591831
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion as I believe the Superior Court wrongly reversed the trial court’s denial of the class action settlement agreement.
I believe the Superior Court re-weighed the evidence and substituted its judgment for that of the trial court. For example, as enumerated by the majority, the Superior Court disagreed with the trial court’s evaluation of the likelihood the class would prevail; the Superior Court also disagreed with the trial court’s assessment of factual evidence by giving more weight to the class’s proposed testimony than to the bank’s already proffered evidence. This re-weighing of the proposed evidence impinges upon the very essence of the trial court’s function as the trial court is in the best position to make credibility determinations.
Moreover, contrary to the Superior Court’s interpretation of the trial court’s analysis, I find the trial judge correctly applied the Buchanan factors by establishing that the settlement agreement fell within the required range of reasonableness. Therefore, since the Superior Court made its determination by substituting its judgment of the facts for that of the trial court, I would reverse and affirm the trial court’s rejection of the settlement.