Court Opinion

ID: 9564179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:55:39.705846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.781411
License: Public Domain

MAUGHAN, Justice
(dissenting):
For the following reasons I dissent.
The circulated opinion cites the findings of the trial court, one of which is as follows:
“. . . (7) plaintiff suffered no damage by reason of the setoff of overpay-ments, but in fact was benefited in the amount of $31,213.00.”
and:
“At no point in its argument does plaintiff directly contest the trial court’s finding that it was not monetarily damaged by defendant’s recoupment of the overpayments from the 1976 proceeds.”
The opinion concedes, were this Court to leave the recoupments undisturbed, plaintiff would be substantially benefited, and in addition it concedes plaintiff “is granted a $31,213.00 windfall by defendant’s decision not to appeal . .”
The opinion affirms the ruling of the trial court except for that portion which approved the set-off of the accounts receivable from Carlson Brothers. It then proceeds to reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $28,427.65.
It is apparent the trial court had this in mind when it made its finding No. 7. The trial judge found no force in the questioned $28,000 set-off, for the reason that it knew the bank had already been benefited directly by a $31,000 overpayment. To enter any kind of an additional judgment in favor of the bank is to give the bank a double recovery.