 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tarver v. E.J. Bartells Co.5/15/2000
lement and had no common ownership. Niven, 97 Wn. App. at 512. The court thus held that Rapid-American remained 'separately obligated for old Carey's liabilities notwithstanding the discharge of Celotex' in the prior agreement, and that the trial court erred in enforcing the agreement. Niven, 97 Wn. App. at 513.
Like the settlement in Niven, the Tarvers' agreement releases Celotex and its affiliates but does not name the Carey companies in their own right. Nevertheless, Rapid-American argues that the parties intended to release Carey as well, and that this intent is evident in a satisfaction of judgment the Tarvers filed and executed as part of the settlement agreement. That document provided:
Jewel Tarver and Ma{r}thelma Tarver, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, Schroeter, Goldmark and Bender, hereby certify that the judgment herein dated against defendants Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Keene Corporation; Fibreboard Corporation; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation; The Celotex Corporation and Its Predecessors in Business, has been satisfied in full.
Rapid-American argues that the settlement agreement and the satisfaction of judgment, when construed together, indicate that the agreement discharged all claims against Philip Carey, citing Mead v. Anton, 33 Wn.2d 741, 207 P.2d 227, 10 A.L.R.2d 588 (1949). The satisfaction of judgment, however, merely discharges the judgment that existed between the parties. See RCW 4.56.100(1) ('When any judgment for the payment of money only shall have been paid or satisfied, the clerk of the court in which such judgment was rendered shall note upon the record in the execution docket satisfaction thereof . . . . When so satisfied by the clerk or the filing of such certificate{,} the lien of such judgment shall be discharged.'). Our Supreme Court has stated that a written instrument filed pursuant to the statute governing satisfaction of judgments should not ordinarily be extended beyond its express terms, unless such a construction is required by some well-recognized rule of law. Johnson v. Stewart, 1 Wn.2d 439, 452, 96 P.2d 473 (1939). As discussed above, there is no indication that Philip Carey was a party to the plaintiffs' settlement. Nor does the record indicate that the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Philip Carey. Thus, there is no reason for us to interpret the satisfaction of judgment as a release of additional claims against Carey that were not encompassed by the judgment, and we reject that argument.
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the trial court's decision to enforce the Tarvers' 1990 agreement and remand the cause for trial.
WE CONCUR:
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|