 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Barber v. Guilford County Sheriff's Dep't12/16/2003
PUBLISHED
Jessie Barber and Calvert Stewart ("plaintiffs") appeal from an order imposing sanctions on plaintiffs and specifically enforcing a settlement agreement between plaintiffs and Thomas Gordy ("defendant").
I. Background
On 15 July 2002, plaintiffs and defendant attended a mediated settlement conference. The mediated settlement conference concluded after plaintiffs and defendant signed a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contained, among others, the following provisions:
2. Mr. Stewart and Ms. Barber shall focus their public discussion of the death of their son upon the institutions involved and the people heading those institutions and their immediate advisers - not upon Deputy Gordy;
3. Mr. Stewart and Ms. Barber agree not to use the word "murder" with respect to Deputy Gordy in the future and further agree that neither the results of the Sheriff Department's investigation nor their discovery in this action provide a basis for accusing Deputy Gordy of committing a crime.
Paragraph three was included in the settlement agreement at the specific request of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and their attorney signed the settlement agreement, as did defendant and his attorney. The settlement agreement did not provide that it would be entered as a consent judgment by the court. To comply with the settlement agreement, defendant dismissed his counterclaims with prejudice on 19 July 2002. Later that day, plaintiffs called a press conference at the Guilford County Courthouse. Plaintiff Barber stated that she did not intend to abide by the settlement agreement. She publicly stated, "Pysche! I lied. I will not honor it" and also called defendant a "murderer." Plaintiff Stewart also spoke at the press conference and called defendant various names, including "assassin," "executioner," and "butcher." Plaintiffs also stated they would not apologize to defendant as they had agreed in the settlement agreement.
On 26 July 2002, defendant filed a motion for sanctions against plaintiffs for violations of the settlement agreement and, in the alternative, to set aside defendant's entry of dismissal. The trial court granted defendant's motion for sanctions and ordered the settlement agreement specifically enforced. The court did not rule on defendant's motion to set aside the defendant's entry of dismissal with prejudice of his counterclaims. Plaintiffs appeal.
II. Issues
The issues are whether: (1) the trial court erred in approving and adopting the terms of the settlement agreement and in ordering specific performance of that settlement agreement; (2) the settlement agreement is unenforceable because it violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I and XIV of the North Carolina Constitution by placing a prior restraint on plaintiffs' speech; and (3) the trial court exceeded its authority in imposing sanctions on plaintiffs.
III. Specific Performance
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in ordering them to specifically perform all terms in the settlement agreement. This Court, in State ex rel. Howes v. Ormond Oil & Gas Co., stated "it is wellsettled in North Carolina that compromises and settlements of controversies between parties are favored by our courts." 128 N.C. App. 130, 136, 493 S.E.2d 793, 796 (1997) (citing PCI Energy Services, Inc. v. Wachs Technical Services, Inc., 122 N.C. App. 436, 439, 470 S.E.2d 565, 567 (1996)).
We explained that " lthough our courts have not laid down a precise method for the enforcement of such agreements, the general rule in other jurisdictio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|