Discover Bank v. Rinn

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Discover Bank v. Rinn

2013 Mass. App. Div. 113, 2013 WL 3283353, 2013 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 29

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedJune 21, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Mass. App. Div. 113 (Discover Bank v. Rinn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Discover Bank v. Rinn, 2013 Mass. App. Div. 113, 2013 WL 3283353, 2013 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 29 (Mass. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Welch, J.

The plaintiff, Discover Bank (“Discover”), has appealed the trial court’s assessment of damages in its favor in the amount of $5,100.00. On its appeal, Discover asserts that the amount assessed by the trial court judge was an abuse of discretion. The defendant, Kathy A. Rinn (“Rinn”), has not filed any opposition.

Discovers complaint sought $12,832.18 in unpaid charges on Rinn’s credit card agreement. Rinn’s answer did not address the complaint allegations, but instead referenced three attachments from the “National Employee Benefits Group.”¹ Due to the absence of any denial of complaint claims, Discover moved for judgment on the pleadings and for a hearing to assess damages.

Motions for assessments of damages are a significant staple of District Court civil motion sessions, and generally fall into one of three groups, namely, those situations in which the debtor failed to respond to the complaint, admitted to liability but not damages, or made an admission of both liability and damages owed, but professed an inability to pay. A review of the testimony at the assessment hearing places this case in the second category of those where liability is not disputed, but damages are at issue.²

[114]*114The computation of damages is a factual determination that cannot be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear indication that the assessment was unsupported by the evidence introduced at trial, or was tainted by error of law. Cimino v. Perfection Autobody, Inc., 1998 Mass. App. Div. 109, 111, citing Kuhlmann v. Hy-Crest Ranches, Inc., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 547 (1976), and Menezes v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 1989 Mass. App. Div. 161. To conclude that a judge has committed an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court must determine that ‘“no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly’ have made” the ruling that is being appealed. Maloney v. Maloney, 2004 Mass. App. Div. 189, quoting Mazzaoleni v. Cotton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 153 (1992). See Twin Fires Inv., LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 445 Mass. 411, 424-425 (2005) (amount of damages awarded reviewed under abuse of discretion standard). The issue is whether the judge’s decision “restjed] on whimsy, caprice, or arbitrary or idiosyncratic notions.” Massachusetts Ass'n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers v. Abban, 434 Mass. 256, 266 (2001), quoting Bucchiere v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 396 Mass. 639, 642 (1986). In the present circumstances, Discover argues that a hearing was held that consisted of a settlement discussion and that the trial judge’s decision was a forced settlement by way of a judgment on an assessment of damages.³ Although trial judges may be tempted to impose their will to settle a case, when settlement fails, any subsequent hearing cam not include any evidence regarding settlement discussions. See Mass. G. Evid. §408 (2012), adopted in principle in Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, 603-604 (1996).

[115]*115A review of the hearing transcript shows that the judge assessed damages based upon impermissible criteria. The basis for the award of $5,100.00 in damages to Discover was the settlement discussions; no other adequate foundation for the damages award was presented. As the damages were assessed without any factual basis, the matter must be returned to the trial court. The award of damages of $5,100.00 to Discover is vacated, and the case is returned to the trial court for a new hearing for the assessment of damages.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Welch, J.

The plaintiff, Discover Bank (“Discover”), has appealed the trial court’s assessment of damages in its favor in the amount of $5,100.00. On its appeal, Discover asserts that the amount assessed by the trial court judge was an abuse of discretion. The defendant, Kathy A. Rinn (“Rinn”), has not filed any opposition.

Discovers complaint sought $12,832.18 in unpaid charges on Rinn’s credit card agreement. Rinn’s answer did not address the complaint allegations, but instead referenced three attachments from the “National Employee Benefits Group.”¹ Due to the absence of any denial of complaint claims, Discover moved for judgment on the pleadings and for a hearing to assess damages.

Motions for assessments of damages are a significant staple of District Court civil motion sessions, and generally fall into one of three groups, namely, those situations in which the debtor failed to respond to the complaint, admitted to liability but not damages, or made an admission of both liability and damages owed, but professed an inability to pay. A review of the testimony at the assessment hearing places this case in the second category of those where liability is not disputed, but damages are at issue.²

[114]*114The computation of damages is a factual determination that cannot be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear indication that the assessment was unsupported by the evidence introduced at trial, or was tainted by error of law. Cimino v. Perfection Autobody, Inc., 1998 Mass. App. Div. 109, 111, citing Kuhlmann v. Hy-Crest Ranches, Inc., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 547 (1976), and Menezes v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 1989 Mass. App. Div. 161. To conclude that a judge has committed an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court must determine that ‘“no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly’ have made” the ruling that is being appealed. Maloney v. Maloney, 2004 Mass. App. Div. 189, quoting Mazzaoleni v. Cotton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 153 (1992). See Twin Fires Inv., LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 445 Mass. 411, 424-425 (2005) (amount of damages awarded reviewed under abuse of discretion standard). The issue is whether the judge’s decision “restjed] on whimsy, caprice, or arbitrary or idiosyncratic notions.” Massachusetts Ass'n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers v. Abban, 434 Mass. 256, 266 (2001), quoting Bucchiere v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 396 Mass. 639, 642 (1986). In the present circumstances, Discover argues that a hearing was held that consisted of a settlement discussion and that the trial judge’s decision was a forced settlement by way of a judgment on an assessment of damages.³ Although trial judges may be tempted to impose their will to settle a case, when settlement fails, any subsequent hearing cam not include any evidence regarding settlement discussions. See Mass. G. Evid. §408 (2012), adopted in principle in Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, 603-604 (1996).

[115]*115A review of the hearing transcript shows that the judge assessed damages based upon impermissible criteria. The basis for the award of $5,100.00 in damages to Discover was the settlement discussions; no other adequate foundation for the damages award was presented. As the damages were assessed without any factual basis, the matter must be returned to the trial court. The award of damages of $5,100.00 to Discover is vacated, and the case is returned to the trial court for a new hearing for the assessment of damages.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2013 Mass. App. Div. 113, 2013 WL 3283353, 2013 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/discover-bank-v-rinn-massdistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack