ILNews

Appellate court upholds enforcing settlement agreement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a Marion Superior judge’s decision to enforce a disputed settlement agreement, finding the parties agreed to the essential terms resolving the issues between them.

Debra Sands filed a complaint in Wisconsin against Menard Inc.; John Menard Jr., the founder and majority owner of the home-improvement chain Menard’s; and Indiana-based companies MH Equity and MH Equity Managing Member, seeking a portion of the assets accumulated while she lived with Menard. MH Equity Managing Member then filed a suit against Sands in Marion Superior Court alleging she breached a fiduciary duty by serving as the attorney for MH Equity and Managing Member and taking $170,000 for legal services when she wasn’t licensed to practice in Indiana.

The attorney for MH Equity and Managing Member, Steven Shockley, contacted Sands’ attorney, Daniel Shulman, and proposed the parties dismiss the claims in the Wisconsin and Indiana courts with prejudice. Shulman accepted the offer and also proposed drafting mutual releases. Shulman had another attorney draft a stipulation for dismissal and a mutual release on the Indiana case and asked Shockley to do the same for the Wisconsin case.

The draft stipulation from Sands’ counsel didn’t include a signature block for Menard or the other Menard defendants, which Shockley took issue with because he didn’t believe that complied with Wisconsin Rule 807.05. Sands’ counsel accepted Shockley’s changes to the stipulation, but didn’t believe that all parties had to execute the stipulation. The parties never signed a final agreement.  

Sands then filed a motion to enforce settlement in the Wisconsin suit and that court entered an order of enforcement. She then moved to enforce the settlement in the Indiana case, which the trial court also granted, noting the settlement agreement should be respected as a matter of comity here.   

Managing Member appealed, arguing that the Marion Superior Court improperly exercised comity. While the trial court purportedly found comity appropriate, it actually addressed the merits of the matter before it and held that an enforceable agreement had been reached, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey in MH Equity Managing Member, LLC v. Debra K. Sands, No. 49A02-1005-CC-495. The Indiana court was enforcing the provision for dismissal of the claim pending in Indiana, which the Wisconsin court had expressly left for disposition here, he continued.

The appellate court also found that a contract had been formed, despite Managing Member’s claim that no contract was formed because the proposal for settlement by respective dismissals weren’t met with “mirror-image” acceptance but a counteroffer including an additional term.

The parties agreed to the essential terms resolving the issues between the parties – to dismiss with prejudice the claims in Wisconsin and Indiana courts. Even though the parties’ communications didn’t “mirror” each other and Sands’ attorney proposed a new term by proposing the execution of releases, Managing Member’s counsel readily agreed to the execution of the releases.

“Two trial courts have made the factual determination that Managing Member and Sands expressed assent to the material term of dismissal with prejudice of the Indiana action against Sands and the Wisconsin action against MH Equity,” wrote Judge Bailey. “The communications of the parties’ attorneys contemplated the execution of mutual releases; thus, they contemplated a subsequent document. However, there is no evidence that the release document would have modified any substantial term of the settlement agreement.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT