Rea v. Moore

Peter H. Rea (“Appellant”) contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) entering a judgment against him for sanctions based on an inherent power to do so, and fading to follow the statutory requirements of Rule 55.03, 1 and (2) setting aside a previously entered judgment without specifying good cause for doing so. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court’s decisions.

This case stems from an action filed by Appellant in December 1987 in which he claimed, in pertinent part, that he had loaned or advanced $49,000 to Clovis and Nancy Moore (“Respondent”). 2…