Court Opinion

ID: 9610953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:49:33.826503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:07.444996
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
dissenting in part. While I concur in that part of the majority opinion which affirms the judgment by default as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders, I dissent from that part of the opinion which approves a $100,000.00 punitive damage award.
The amount found by the trial court to be the actual damages suffered by Dr. and Mrs. Binyon was $9,326.06. When I consider the acts which the court considers to have justified the punitive damage award, I am shocked by the allowance of $100,000.00 punitive damages.
What was the basis for this allowance? Roy Nesseth determined the profit for the dealership under the lease to the Binyons was insufficient and refused to have the dealership comply with the provisions in the lease. He refused to pay the personal property taxes or furnish license tags and he apparently added provisions in the lease to indicate the dealership was not responsible for these items. Nesseth was guilty of having no intention of honoring the lease to the Binyons. I do not condone his actions, but on *388the basis of the foregoing facts it is apparent to me the trial court not only imposed the sanction of default judgment but also an additional sanction by increasing the amount of punitive damages. Therefore, I dissent from the $100,000.00 award of punitive damages.
Herd, J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.