stating that the court could “cut [the pro se litigants] no slack simply because [they] have no formal legal training.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the court could “cut [the pro se litigants] no slack simply because [they] have no formal legal training.”
- stating that the court could "eut [the pro se litigants] no slack simply because [they] have no formal legal training."
- “The purpose of compensatory damages is to award or impose a pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury done or wrong sustained by a party. In contrast, punitive damages are not compensatory in nature but are assigned to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future.”
- “[W]hen reviewing the question of whether attorney fees should be imposed as a sanction for failure to follow the rules of appellate procedure, we can cut the Watsons no slack simply because they have no formal legal training.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the assessment of attorney fees and a fine against appellants. As the majority notes, this is a case of first impression. The appellants' desire to have their case reviewed by an appellate court on an issue of which there is no Indiana precedent cannot be deemed litigating in bad faith. There is no evidence that appellants in pursuing their novel claim were affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. Young, supra. Furthermore, as the majority also notes, the appellants' pro se brief adequately presented the issues and argument. This is sufficient to preclude a finding of procedural bad faith.
As to the imposition of a fine pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 15(G), this rule provides:
"(G) Damages Against Appellant. If the court on appeal affirms the judgment, damages may be assessed in favor of the appellee not exceeding ten per cent (10%) upon the judgment, in money judgments, and in other cases in the discretion of the court; and the court shall remand such cause for execution. [Emphasis added.]"
Clearly the majority was acting without authority in assessing a $2,000.00 fine against appellants payable to the clerk's office.
I would affirm the trial court.