Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Enforcing a settlement

Maybe some lawyers just don't have enough to do.  That thought occurred to me while reading the 8th District's decision a few weeks ago in Morris-Walden v. Moore

The facts are simple:  the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, and other neat stuff like that.  The case was settled right before trial, on December 5, 2005, with defendant agreeing to pay plaintiff $10,000 in ten days.  When defendants hadn't paid by January 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate under Rule 60(B) and a motion for sanctions.  Defendants paid the money the next day.

Mission accomplished, right?  Wrong.  That's when the legal maneuvering went into high gear:

On January 11, 2006, appellees filed their response to appellants' motion to reinstate and for sanctions. Seven days later, appellants sought leave to file a reply to appellees' response. A number of motions soon followed, including: plaintiffs' reply to defendants' motion for leave to file reply instanter, defendants' rejoinder to plaintiffs' reply, plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' rejoinder, defendants' motion for nunc pro tunc leave to file rejoinder and brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to strike.

And a partridge in a pear tree.  The trial court, apparently deciding, quite correctly, that it had a virtually infinite variety of better ways of occupying its time, denied all the motions.  At which point the plaintiffs, having devoted a substantial amount of attorney time to recouping the month's interest on the $10,000, took it to the court of appeals.

The appellate court made short shrift of the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's failure to pay within the ten days constituted a "fraud on the court" under Rule 60(B)(3), and held that the appropriate remedy would have been to file an action for breach of contract:

Allegations that a party did not honor a settlement agreement may be the subject of an independent action for breach of the settlement contract but not for relief from the settlement itself.

The court probably went a little too far here.  As this case from the 1st District recognized last year, there's a good body of case law that a party has two remedies for a breached settlement:

A party may seek to enforce a settlement agreement through the filing of an independent action sounding in breach of contract, or it may be sought in the same action through a supplemental pleading filed pursuant to Civ.R. 15(E), setting out the alleged agreement and breach.

Indeed, as Judge Karpinski points out in her dissent in this 2002 case, there's case law in the 8th District holding that the commonplace "settled and dismissed" entry is actually a "conditional dismissal," where the case isn't really dismissed until the settlement is completed, and until that time, the trial court has inherent power to enforce the settlement.

So if you settle a case and the other side stiffs you, you've got a remedy.  But if they send you a check the next day, take the money and be done with it.  It beats spending a lot more time on the case just so you can ultimately stand before a panel of appellate judges and try to explain to them why you're wasting their time.

Search

Recent Entries

  • March 20, 2017
    Taking time off
    I'm taking the week off. Have a major brief due on Thursday, plus a trial in Federal court starting next Monday. Plus, I'm pretty sure that Obama wiretapped me, too, so I'm working on getting to the bottom of that....
  • March 17, 2017
    What's Up with the 8th?
    The 8th District cases come out every Thursday. By about ten o'clock in the morning, the court will have posted the "weekly decision list" on its web site. It will give a summary of the case, usually in a sentence...
  • March 14, 2017
    Rippo and Pena-Rodriguez
    SCOTUS issues decisions on judicial recusal and biased jurors
  • March 13, 2017
    Case Update
    A SCOTUS decision on career offenders, and appellate cases on what a judge can consider in sentencing, and untimely motions to suppress
  • March 9, 2017
    A switch in time
    The court reverses itself in Gonzalez
  • March 8, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    More sentencing stories, and the right way to handle an Anders brief
  • March 7, 2017
    Case Update
    Knock and announce and the Ohio Constitution, and Anders briefs.
  • March 6, 2017
    Never mind
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses Gonzalez.
  • March 2, 2017
    Of bright lines and bookbags
    Oral argument in State v. Oles and State v. Polk
  • February 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A good outcome in a search case, probably a good outcome (to be) in a drug case, and a very bad outcome in a child rape case