The court should favor announcing the decision of a small claim at the end of the trial.
Commentary
Clerk-magistrates and judges have varied opinions as to the advantages and disadvantages of announcing a decision in a small claim at the conclusion of the trial as compared with taking a case under advisement and then rendering a decision at a later time. The practice of rendering a decision immediately at the end of the trial has certain advantages that would make this practice preferable.
By announcing a decision immediately at the end of the trial, finality is brought to the process. The court also has the opportunity to state briefly to the parties the reasoning behind the decision. To some people, understanding the reasoning behind the decision is as important as the decision itself. Since the court appearance is often the finale of a long disagreement between the parties where each party may have extensively planned and worried over its presentation and taken time from work to be in court, an immediate decision and explanation is preferable to simply having the case taken under advisement and subsequently rendering a decision in the mail without any explanation.
In cases where the plaintiff prevails and the defendant does not wish to claim a jury trial or bench trial, another very important advantage of rendering a decision at the conclusion of the trial while the parties are still before the court is to enter into an immediate discussion of the defendant’s ability to pay. This avoids additional delay and the need for a further court appearance to attend a subsequent payment hearing. See Standard 7:03. A full payment hearing can and should be entered into immediately upon rendering a decision. Occasionally the court may need to grant a short continuance in order to gather additional information necessary to evaluate a defendant’s ability to pay, but such continuances should be the exception and not the rule. If, for any reason, a payment hearing is not commenced immediately upon the rendering of a decision, then a full payment hearing shall be scheduled no later than thirty days from the time judgment is entered or shortly thereafter.
Those in favor of reserving decision emphasize that small claim sessions may be volatile, and sometimes the rendering of an immediate decision might provoke emotional outbursts, taxing the court’s patience as well as its time. For this reason, all small claim sessions should have appropriate court officers assigned to the session just as they are to all other court sessions.
There are times when further research is necessary in order to render a just decision. In those circumstances, the court should take the appropriate time.
Regardless of which approach is utilized by the court, a written decision with a brief statement of findings where possible should be issued by the court immediately after a decision is made even if the decision is made orally at the end of the trial. The court’s comments at the time of trial or at the time of rendering a decision serve to assist the litigants in understanding the reasoning behind each other’s position and controlling their emotional reaction to the decision. All decisions should be reasoned and based upon substantive law. A final decision must be just and not based upon "a flip of the coin" or a splitting of a decision equally between the parties without any basis in fact or substantive law. Although all clerk-magistrates and judges have discretion in rendering decisions, when decisions are made without the application of logic, reasoning, or pertinent mathematical calculations, there exists the possibility of the public losing faith in the decision-making process. This is not to suggest that there are not cases where the court must render a decision without any precise logical or mathematical guides. There are, obviously, cases that require the best decision of the fact finder that is devoid of mathematical certainties.
Any orders for payment should be included in the decision and mailed to the parties promptly.