Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong on Friday affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of appellee Susan Kloulechad and against Western Caroline Trading Co.
Chief Justice Ngiraklsong said that t collect debts owed under worthless checks, appellant Western Caroline Trading had no clear entitlement to any amount of attorney fees or punitive damages.The Supreme Court said appellant cites no statutory or contractual predicate for an award of attorney fees provision or otherwise gives rise to a legal or equitable right to such fees.Western Caroline Trading filed a complaint against Kloulechad for writing two checks that were later returned for insufficient funds.The total amount of the checks was $103.13.The plaintiff sought judgment for the amount of debt, plus interest, returned check fees and court fees and punitive damages.The defendant who was pro se filed no response to the complaint but on January 23, 2007, she entered with appellant a stipulation for judgment.The Supreme Court’s order stated that Kloulechad agreed to the stipulation which stated that she owed the amounts due under the checks, plus interest, check fees, court cost as well as $180 in attorney fees.The Trial Division on June 25, 2007, entered judgment based on the stipulation that the parties agreed upon but did not award the attorney fees contained in the stipulationThe court instead, awarded $53.26 in the form of punitive damages.Western Caroline Trading appealed the trial court’s decision and challenged the trial court’s deviation from the parties stipulation which called for an award of $180 in attorney fees.Justice Ngiraklsong in his order said that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $53.26 in the form of punitive damages.“Appellant cannot now be heard to complain that the judge abused her discretion in awarding $53.26 in the form of punitive damages without legal or factual support for such conclusory statements. Likewise, appellant’s arguments concerning its entitlement to attorney’s fees lack legal and factual support,”the Chief Justice said.The Supreme Court in affirming the trial court’s decision said that they find the amount awarded as punitive damages appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion,“Courts have broad discretion in determining whether to hold a party to a stipulation and may set aside a stipulation where enforcement would not be conducive to justice. In other words, a stipulation may be binding on the parties but it is not binding on the court,”Chief Justice Ngiraklsong said
