Court Opinion

ID: 9518995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:07:01.314994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:40.275937
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, concurring in part and dissenting in part: . I concur with the judgment of the majority that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny sanctions for Wilkin’s act of filing a time-barred claim under the facts of this case. I respectfully dissent, however, from that part of the majority’s opinion which concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award sanctions. The decision to award sanctions rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Although there are facts in the record that support an award, there are also facts that cut the other way. It was for the trial court to call. The question is not how we would have decided the issue but whether the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. I respectfully submit that it was not. I also strongly disagree with the majority’s statement that a strong case is made for concluding Wilkin deliberately lied under oath to extract an unwarranted settlement. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.