Yet, in this case, the Circuit Court expressly justified its punitive award based in part on a connection it drew between the loan in this case and the 2008 financial crisis - including harm to the entire "global economy.
This punishment of Quicken Loans for its purported role in harm to others is flatly unconstitutional. First, the Circuit Court misapplied the "aggravating" factor concerning the "appropriateness of punitive damages to encourage settlement" from syllabus point 4 of Games. Yet the Circuit Court used it in precisely that way, remarking that because Quicken Loans had stood on its rights rather than settle the case, it must now "face the music. Second, the Circuit Court utterly failed to address the federal substantive due process guideposts as this Court loans for unemployed Tennessee required in Perrine, 694 S. In particular, the third "guidepost" is both missing from and has no proxy factor in a Games-only analysis, and that factor - comparison with civil penalties authorized or imposed in similar cases - should carry great weight in this case. Of course, the law requires "more than a showing of simple negligence to recover punitive damages. Harm from negligent conduct cannot support punitive damages. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has not counted such fees as compensatory damages in calculating the permissible ratio, even when it has been urged to do so. It was, therefore, a new point of law, and as regards punitive damages, such pronouncements should apply only prospectively. Again, due process entitles a defendant to fair advance notice of the conduct for which a state may impose a punishment and the size of the penalty that the state may impose for that particular misconduct. To begin with, the Court considered the two provisions of the Consumer Credit and Protection Act that authorize outright debt cancellation (W. Second, the Court held that a merely negligent violation of W. This Court then made perfectly clear what equitable remedy, rather than cancellation, was permissible: "This Court finds that a balancing of the equities requires that the parties be returned to the status quo as nearly as is possible. This Court also made clear what constituted a return to the status quo: unwinding the transaction entirely, with the Plaintiffs returning the monies lent them.
The Circuit Court ordered that "Plaintiffs shall have no further legal obligation to repay to Quicken Loans the Note executed by the Plaintiffs, and Quicken Loans shall have no further legal rights under the terms of said Note and Deed of Trust. This unique "lien" can be rendered worthless at the whim of Plaintiffs, who need never sell the property and may apparently freely pass it to "heirs" or "assigns" without satisfying the phantom lien.
After trial, the Circuit Court made no such award, and potential damages under the appraisal statute were beyond the scope of the no credit check loans in Rhode Island remand. A plaintiff who has not suffered damages is not entitled to damages. Quicken is therefore entitled to a credit for the settlement between Plaintiff and the appraisal defendants. Moreover, this Court recognized that Quicken is "entitled to a reduction of the compensatory damage award, but not the punitive damage award. Thus, no credit check loans in Rhode Island Quicken Loans is entitled to offset of compensatory damages. The only case the Circuit Court cited in support of its no credit check loans in Rhode Island contrary holding is one in which the court did not decide the issue, but rather expressed doubt about the propriety of an offset before providing offset on other grounds. Defendant-appellant has presented a persuasive argument, highlighting the unfairness and unreasonableness of denying an offset.
In the first appeal, Plaintiffs expressly requested that this Court award them their fees on appeal. But if they are so considered, then Quicken Loans must be entitled to its offset. A Circuit Court may not award fees on remand for a prior appeal where the mandate had not included a directive to do so.
The Circuit Court therefore no credit check loans in Rhode Island plainly erred in shifting yet another quarter-million dollars of fees onto Quicken Loans. All of the litigation on remand concerned issues on which Quicken Loans was successful on appeal: punitive damages, cancellation of the Loan, and offset. And the fee award was expressly made pursuant to W.
Thus, the time spent on no credit check loans in Rhode Island punitive damages concerned a claim for which fees are unavailable, and therefore that time cannot be included in the calculation of fees. Being easily distinguished from time spent on other claims, Plaintiffs must present time records that permit that time to be segregated. The failure to apportion fees is particularly egregious here because the majority of the fees on remand were incurred in litigating punitive damages. Here, however, the court accepted essentially all of the supposed fees, without any analysis. This Court awards the hourly rates requested by the Plaintiffs, with slight modification "). Furthermore, if the Circuit Court had examined the supposed fees, it would have found that the documentation of hours was clearly deficient. First, it is admittedly based in some unspecified (but substantial) part on "reconstructed" time.
In other words, records were not kept contemporaneously, but have been created from hindsight. Goodwin, counsel of record for Petitioner Quicken Loans Inc. PERRY II, WtRH SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST viRRlWlft LOURIE BROWN and MONIQUE BROWN, Respondents. The Loan Origination and Fraudulent Promise of Refinancing 3 C. Foreclosure and Procedural History through Trial 9 G. Proceedings on Remand 12 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 13 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT AND DECISION 15 ARGUMENT 15 I. The no credit check loans in Rhode Island Punitive Damages Award Was Well-Supported And Satisfied Due Process 1 5 A. The civil penalty Quicken references is meaningless 25 II. The Circuit Court Did Not Punish Quicken For Taking An Appeal 29 III. The Circuit Court Performed A Proper Games Analysis And In No Way Punished Quicken For Any Lawful Conduct 30 i IV.
The Circuit Court Did Not Enhance Its Award On Account Of Wealth 32 V. There Was No Punishment For Dissimi lar Acts Or Harm To Others 32 VI. Quicken Will Stop At Nothing To Deny Plaintiffs A Single Recovery Of Attorney Fees And Costs 41 X. The Mandate Of This Court Leaves The Issue Of A Supplemental Fee Award To The Discretion Of The Circuit Court 44 XI.