Railan v. Katyal

Although I believe that the Katyals have prevailed by a razor-thin margin with respect to several issues — whether there was clear and convincing evidence of fraud, whether damages were sufficiently established, and, especially, whether punitive damages are warranted, see, e.g., Feltman v. Sarbov, 366 A.2d 137, 141 (D.C.1976) — I am prepared to join Parts I through VII of the majority opinion. I must, however, respectfully dissent from the holding that Mr. Railan has somehow forfeited his right to a deficiency judgment.1

“[Ujnlike rescission, a remedy founded upon equitable principles, the…