- 67 -
the estate’s representation in executing the decision without
reviewing or challenging the agreed computation. The Court now
interprets the estate’s position to be that the interest should
not be paid because the overpayment was erroneously overstated.
The estate has never explicitly argued this, but if the adopted
opinion has correctly interpreted the estate’s position,2 the
estate previously made a factual assertion on which the Court
granted the deduction, that the interest payment would be made.
If the adopted opinion’s legal analysis is correct, the estate’s
change of course causes the Court to look foolish for relying on
the estate’s prior representation.
This Court should hold the estate to its stipulation under
Rule 155(a). This is not a question of finality, rather one of
consistency. The inconsistency created by this result threatens
judicial integrity and the integrity of this Court’s Rules. The
estate is rewarded for misleading the Court and avoiding the
agreement reached pursuant to Rule 155(a). This Court has the
authority to construe the Rules to deny this abuse of our process
and to reach a just result.
As Judge Laro explains, this Court has the authority of a
court of law. We can implement that authority to fill in gaps in
our Rules pursuant to Rule 1(a). We also have the inherent
2 There are no briefs on this issue, and the estate’s motion
is unclear at best.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011