Carder Buick-Olds Co. v. Wooten, No. CA08-898.
In 1991, Carder sued Wooten related to the operation and sale of a used car business. The parties reached a proposed settlement in 1992, but Carder later stated that no settlement had been agreed upon. Wooten filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which the court granted in a 1993 judgment that provided Wooten would pay Carder $4,500 and turn over stock in the used car business to Carder within ten days. Seven days after entry of the judgment, Wooten sent these items to Carder. Carder return the items and appealed the judgment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, and Wooten again send the items to Carder. Carder again returned them. The matter then lay dormant for approximately eight years.
In 2003, Carder file a petition for writ of scire facias, seeking to revive the judgment against Wooten. Wooten answered that the judgment had been satisfied by his tender. The trial court agreed and denied the petition for writ of scire facias. Carder appealed.
On appeal, Carder argued that Wooten’s earlier tender was not acceptable because it did not provide for any post-judgment interest. The Arkansas Court of Appeals agreed that Wooten’s tender did not discharge his obligation, but noted that any post-judgment interest on the $4,500 offered seven days after the initial judgment would be minimal. The court relied on the equitable doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, or the law is not interested in trivial matters, to hold that the minimal amount of post-judgment interest that was not paid in the initial offering was insufficient to allow Carder to now seek mutlipe years of post-judgment interest from Wooten. The court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to enter an order allowing Wooten to satisfy the judgment by paying Carder $4,500 and turning over the stock.
