DocketNumber: No. CV95 0554967 S
Judges: BEACH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/7/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
I decline to revise the judgment further. The reserve of $100,000 was not applied to the 1994 year because the distribution was made in that calendar year, albeit in the second half, and the reserve itself is at best an approximation, which even hypothetically would not always have remained precisely at $100,000 as expenses were perhaps paid from it. These factors tend to even out. Similarly, I did not include interest on the reserve, which likely would have been considerably less than 10% in any event (and only 25% of which could have been awarded), because this item was not specifically argued and because the approximate and hypothetical nature of the reserve itself renders the issue de minimis, in the context of the case.
Beach, J.