Court Opinion

ID: 9709925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:57:32.352882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.739653
License: Public Domain

GARTZKE, P.J.
(concurring). According to the dissenting opinion, Nelson's damages should be recomputed. I disagree.
The parties stipulated that the judgment against Nelson for $399,775 was part of his damages in his action against Taff. It is irrelevant that Nelson was able later to settle that judgment after winning his suit against Taff. Judgment debtors and creditors frequently *190settle judgments for various reasons, sometimes for less and sometimes for more. How the market operates in that regard is not for our review. When Nelson successfully bought off the judgment for $16,000, he was entitled to act for his own benefit and not Taff s. It is of no more concern to us that Nelson settled the judgment for $16,000 than would be the fact that he could not settle for less than $399,775.
No matter what we do, a windfall will result to Nelson or to Taff. If we affirm the trial court's ruling, then Nelson has an enforceable judgment against Taff for $1,199,326 and he need not pay the trustee in bankruptcy the $399,775 judgment against him, all at a cost of $16,000. If the trial court recomputes Nelson's damages with an eye to excusing Taff from paying more than $16,000 or so, then Taff enjoys a windfall equal to the reduction.
Since a windfall will result no matter what we do, we should look to Taff s conduct and the law which gave rise to the $1,199,326 judgment against him. The jury found that Taff intentionally made a false representation to Nelson, and that Nelson believed the misrepresentation and he relied on it. The jury found that a conspiracy existed to induce individuals to invest in the PDT Partnership under the false pretense that their total liability was limited to the loss of their investment, Taff was a member of that conspiracy, and Nelson was induced to invest in the partnership by the false pretense that his liability was limited to the loss of his investment. The jury found that Taff engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and Nelson was damaged as a result. The law trebled the damages. Given the nature of Taff s conduct, and the law, I see no reason to give him a windfall on grounds that Nelson will otherwise enjoy a windfall.