Court Opinion

ID: 9844144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:58:15.811939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:28.661792
License: Public Domain

HODGES, Justice,
dissenting in part:
I dissent to that part of the majority opinion which affirms the award of punitive damages. In my opinion the award of $60,000 is excessive and a remittitur should be required.
This is not a case where a defendant intentionally confiscated property of another without provocation. Here, the plaintiffs were the creators of their misfortune. They defaulted on their secured obligation, thereby creating insecurities and anxieties which, unfortunately, caused an over reaction by the defendants in an effort to protect their collateral. While defendants’ administrative inefficiency may justify the jury’s conclusion of reckless and wanton disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights, the defendants did attempt to rectify their wrong by returning the tractor two weeks after repossession. Given this state of facts, an award of $843.71 for actual damages does not fully justify a punitive award of $60,-000.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice DON BARNES joins with me in this dissent.