Say someone owes you $500 but refuses to pay it back no matter what. When it is time to go to small-claims court, is one only legally able to recover the $500 itself, or can one also sue for additional damages for “time and energy wasted in dealing with this inconvenience” or perhaps also as some small measure of punitive damages?
This simple and short answer is no, subject to exceptions that would require a contracts outline. If it is simply a breach of contract claim you may not get damages for annoyance and inconvenience.
Ok, thanks.
What if it is not a contract, but more akin to someone rear ending your car?
Then that is different. You now have a tort claim.
Yes, it was on the first page of a google search and it is New Zealand, but it explains the basic differences between recovery in tort and recovery in contract. If it is a simple contract, you get the benefit of that bargain. If it is tort, you are supposed to be made whole, including your annoyance and inconvenience.
Great (or slimy, depending on a person’s opinion) plaintiffs lawyers can almost magically turn some breach of contract into a tort that fits.
But wait. You said that they owe you $500. If the tort damages have already been determined and set to an agreement, then that agreement is a contract. If it is a judgment for $500, then that accrues at state interest rates. You get no compensation for collect efforts except for fees you have actually incurred like filing Writs of Execution and the like.
In the UK, recovery in the Small Claims Court is limited to actual losses. Expenses, certainly (if they are evidenced) and possible loss of interest, but not peripherals like inconvenience and certainly not punitive damages.
Small claims in our court (under Ohio law in the USA) are also limited to actual losses. Annoyance, inconvenience, pain and suffering, and your lost wages while dealing with this @#$%! annoying lawsuit (i.e. for time driving to and from court, and sitting in court) are not granted.
In CA, you might get lost wages. Depends. But not intangibles like Annoyance, inconvenience, pain and suffering.
But if you pay /somebody else/ to be annoyed (a debt collector), you can recover that cost? And some fraction of your legal costs?
Bottom Line in a Court of Law is “Don’t Piss Off the Judge”. And a good way of following this idea is to Not bring up something that the Judge might see as “frivolous”. Don’t ask for some kind of compensation for things like “inconvenience”, “pain and suffering”, etc. This only wastes the Judge’s time and may have a negative effect on the Judge’s decision in your case.
I agree with you not to make frivolous arguments, but if you have a decent one, make it. There is nothing frivolous about annoyances and inconveniences damages. They are provided for by law in some circumstances. And if they are provided, then ask for them.
The problem is this. Let’s say that someone legitimately owes you $2,000. If you ask for $2,000 that is the max you will get after all of your efforts. Some lawyer will try to dick with you and offer you $1,000 right there or tell you to go to court and maybe win and then good luck trying to collect because his client has nothing and his fee and the $1,000 will come from the client’s mother. You will likely settle.
If you can throw a tort theory in there and ask for $5,000 then the lawyer has to start from there. He can tell his client he did a good job by arm twisting you down to “only” $2,000 in your final settlement–which is exactly what you wanted anyways.
Certainly your opening offer in a negotiation shouldn’t be the bare minimum that would make you happy.
My thinking as to claims for compensation for annoyance or lost wages while at court is, everyone in the case is having to deal with that case. If everyone isn’t getting compensated for that, why should you?
I’m not sure I understand. The judge, lawyers, court reported, bailiff, expert witnesses, etc are all getting compensated. The only ones not getting compensated are the plaintiff and the defendant.
I don’t get this. If you owe me $2,000, and after reasonable efforts to come to a settlement fail, I will go to the Small Claims for the whole $2,000. If I have run up an additional $200 in costs - paying a lawyer to write to you for example - I want that back too.
If you offer to settle for a lesser sum in court, or maybe pay by instalments, that would be a decision for then, but I really want my $2k back.
First, in very few cases are you entitled to attorneys fees in the United States.
Otherwise, that’s what I am saying. You want your $2k back. If you go in asking for $2k, then on your very best day in court you will get $2k. Why should the other side just write you a check for $2k knowing that is the upper limit, the very maximum you could get if everything goes the wrong way at trial? And remember, unless you are suing Walmart, judgments are difficult to collect, so it is better to have cash in hand than a judgment that you have to go collect.
If you want $2k, and there is a non-frivolous argument for $5k, then ask for $5k and make them feel good about beating you down and “only” giving you $2k.
Most law doesn’t take place in the courtroom. It takes place in offices and bars and through phone calls and emails where you posture and negotiate.
To follow up: Maybe the argument for $5k is sufficiently persuasive that you get $3k which does cover your attorneys fees.
But once you file that complaint asking for $2k, you have capped your recovery.
It’s not being compensated for being at court. If someone commits tortious conduct against you, you are entitled to be made whole. And if you had several sleepless nights or a worry about paying the bills this month, those are real damages, not something a lawyer just made up nor are they frivolous.
And while no defendant can build a time machine and restore your sleepless nights or ease your prior anxiety, they can do the next best thing: pay you money for you having to suffer that. Yes, bad shit happens in life, but when bad shit happens because that person did something wrong to me, then that person can pay me for it.
Having had one small claims court case (I won), I can say that at least in Kentucky, you can recover expenses related to filing a claim. As I recall, this included the filing cost, copying fees etc.
I did not however try to get extra $$$ based on how annoying the experience was.
Just watched the Netflix episode on Jared Kushner (“Slumlord Millionaire”). In one bit, he’s going after a former tenant who no longer has the papers from several years ago indicating she was permitted to move out early. She is being sued for several hundred in back rent, PLUS attorney fees for the process, making it almost $5,000. So I assume in some such small claims cases, attorney costs are part of the moneys recoverable?
But as I understand it, Small Claims does not get into intangibles like pain and suffering - you have to have an actual out-of-pocket expense to claim.
Of course each state will have their own laws. Generally, and it is called the “American rule” that attorneys fees are not recoverable unless there is a specific statutory provision allowing it. So maybe Kentucky has that for rent cases, I don’t know.
But in my state there is no provision forbidding intangible damages like annoyance and inconvenience, even in small claims court (not called that here, but the provision is the same). Why should it? Those are real damages. If a guy punches you in the mouth without provocation and you went to the doctor and got a bill for $300, should that be the extent of your claim? I think certainly not.