ILNews

Van Winkle: Decision pits mediation confidentiality against contract law

John R. Van Winkle
July 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By John Van Winkle

van-winkle-john-mug.jpg Van Winkle

In the recent case of Horner v. Carter, __N.E.2nd__ (Ind.Ct.App. 2012), 34A02-1111-DR-1029, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that evidence of mediation communications was admissible in a hearing to modify a 7-year-old mediated settlement agreement incorporated into a decree of dissolution. The court had two basic reasons for allowing the testimony of matters communicated during the mediation. First, the court ruled that the evidentiary exclusion provisions of ADR Rule 2.12 and Indiana Evidence Rule 408 did not require exclusion of the evidence because it was offered for a purpose other than “to prove liability for or invalidating of the claim or its amount.” The court ruled that the husband was offering the mediation communication to establish that a mistake had been made in the drafting of the agreement.

The second basis for the court’s ruling is arguably more problematic; that is, that the mediation confidentiality provisions of the ADR rules do not prohibit the admission of mediation communications when used to establish traditional contract defenses such as mistake, fraud and duress.

Clash of mediation confidentiality and substantive contract law

The Horner case highlights the difficulty that occurs when mediation confidentiality provisions collide with long-established contract common law. Courts have not reached unanimous conclusions. For example, in the case of In re Marriage of Kieturakis, 138 Cal.App.4th 56 (Ct.App.2006), the California Court of Appeals wrestled with the problem. In that case, two years after a mediated settlement agreement was reached in a dissolution of marriage, the wife sought to overturn the agreement alleging it had been reached under duress. The California Court of Appeals excluded the testimony of mediation communications, continuing in that state what has been considered to be a “super privilege” created by the California mediation statute.

In the article, “When Mediation Confidentiality and Substantive Law Clash: An Inquiry into the Impact of In Re Marriage of Kieturakis on California Confidentiality Law,” [8 Pepperdine Dis. Res. L. J, Article 7 (2012)], the journal editor discussed the Kieturakis case and the issue presented when mediated agreements are later challenged and parties seek to introduce evidence of mediation communications to support or defend against such challenges. Importantly, that article, as did the court in Horner, cited and discussed the provisions and comments of the Uniform Mediation Act. The UMA was drafted in 2001 by a joint effort of the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and was based not on the evidentiary exclusionary principles of Evidence Rule 408 but rather upon the establishment of a privilege for mediation communications.

Unlike California, however, where the mediation confidentiality provisions have been strictly enforced, the UMA recognized that in appropriate circumstances the mediation confidentiality should defer. The UMA provides in Section 6(B)(2)that the confidentiality privilege may not apply in certain instances in connection with proceedings “to prove a claim to rescind or reform or a defense to avoid liability on a contract arising out of mediation.” The UMA, however, provides important preconditions that must be met before mediation communications will be admissible.

The UMA requires an in camera hearing and weighing of interests

Although the Indiana Court of Appeals in Horner cited UMA Section 6(B)(2) and its comments for the proposition that the exception to the privilege created was to preserve traditional contract defenses, it did not discuss the important balancing and weighing of interests contemplated by that same section. The drafters of the UMA understood that there would be occasions when equities would require that evidence of what was done or said in a mediation be admitted into evidence.

The policy and process reasons for the confidentiality provisions were so critical, however, that the drafters wanted to ensure that such occasions were limited and that there would be process safeguards in place. Therefore, the UMA provides that no evidence of mediation communications should be admitted into evidence until and unless there is an in camera hearing in which the party seeking to use the evidence demonstrates that “the evidence is not otherwise available” and that “there is a need for the evidence that substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality.” Peter Robinson’s article, “Centuries of Contract Common Law Can’t Be All Wrong: Why the UMA’s Exception to Mediation Confidentiality in Enforcement Proceedings Should Be Embraced and Broadened,” 2003 J.Disp.Resol.135, (2003) is cited in Horner in support of the decision to allow the admission of mediation communication, but the decision does not refer to or discuss the critical weighing and balancing principles inherent in the UMA’s exception. Robinson in that article states: “While this exclusion provides the means to apply contract law when enforcing mediated agreements, the UMA reflects a strong commitment to the interests of mediation confidentiality by imposing numerous conditions and one problematic limitation on the implementation of the exception.” (2003 JDR at p.168)

Although Robinson concludes the UMA is flawed in that it prohibits mediator testimony, he underscores the importance of the in camera hearing and states that the “extreme remedy” of allowing the admission of mediation communications is only available after specific findings by a neutral authority. It is this balancing and weighing inherent in the in camera hearing which is missing from the discussion and holding of Horner.

Conclusion

It is submitted that the balancing and weighing of interests contemplated by the UMA and embodied in the requirement for an in camera hearing should be adopted by Indiana courts. Such a hearing ensures that traditional contract defenses and actions are preserved without unnecessary erosions of mediation confidentiality.

The question is how best to graft this requirement into our current law. A clarification or expansion of the holding in Horner by the Indiana Supreme Court would serve as one path. Because, however, the change or expansion of the law would create an affirmative obligation on the part of trial courts to conduct in camera hearings, it could be that the best course would be for the Indiana General Assembly to join the 11 other states, including our neighbors Ohio and Illinois, and adopt the Uniform Mediation Law. Although the adoption of the UMA in Indiana would require some tweaking of the ADR Rules, there would not be a radical departure from the manner in which those ADR Rules have been interpreted to date by the Indiana Supreme Court. Evidence of mediation communications should only be permitted if the court finds after an in camera hearing that the evidence is otherwise not available and that the interest in protecting mediation confidentiality is outweighed by the need for the evidence.•

__________

John Van Winkle is a full-time mediator and a former chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT