 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sabri v. Sabri8/1/2000
ict court's finding of an oral settlement agreement is erroneous. The settlement of litigation is favored and a definite settlement agreement will be enforced, absent fraud, mistake, collusion, or a result that will "not stand in equity." Jallen v. Agre, 264 Minn. 369, 373, 119 N.W.2d 739, 742-43 (1963). Because a settlement of a lawsuit is contractual in nature it requires a definite offer and acceptance that demonstrates a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement. Id. at 373, 119 N.W.2d at 743; see also Theis v. Theis, 271 Minn. 199, 204, 135 N.W.2d 740, 744-45 (1965). A settlement agreement need not be in writing and will be enforced when the facts show that the required contractual elements have been met. Jallen, 264 Minn. at 373, 119 N.W.2d at 743; see Johnson v. Sitzmann, 413 N.W.2d 541, 544-45 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that oral acceptance of settlement offer was enforceable even where party subsequently refused to sign written agreement), review denied (Minn. Dec. 22, 1987). To determine whether an offer has been accepted, Minnesota follows the objective theory of contract formation, which requires the courts to consider the parties' outward manifestations of assent, rather than their subjective intent. Speckel v. Perkins, 364 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Minn. App. 1985). If there is a dispute about whether a settlement was reached, the district court must determine the facts. Jallen, 264 Minn. at 373, 119 N.W.2d at 743.
The existence of an oral contract is a question of fact for the district court. Carlson v. Carlson, 211 Minn. 297, 303, 300 N.W. 900, 902 (1941). Findings of fact shall not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. If there is reasonable evidence tending to support the district court's findings of fact, this court will not reverse those findings. Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999).
The district court weighed the affidavits submitted by respondents against the contradictory testimony of appellant and found that the affidavits were more credible. This court shows great deference to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of witnesses. See State v. Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d 840, 843 (Minn. 1992), aff'd, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S. Ct. 2130 (1993); Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
The district court found credible respondents' evidence that (1) the petition of conservatorship over Salem was dismissed; (2) the lis pendens against appellant's property was dismissed; and (3) Azmi Sabri waived his right to restitution from appellant and successfully asked for leniency for appellant in the Jordanian action. The district court dismissed the action.
Appellant challenges the district court's findings on numerous grounds. First, appellant argues that, because there is no record of any oral negotiations and violent disagreement about what took place, the district court erred in finding an enforceable settlement agreement. See Jallen, 264 Minn. at 374, 119 N.W.2d at 743 (holding that, where no record was made of oral negotiations between parties in personal-injury action and there was disagreement about what took place, no enforceable settlement was established by plaintiff who voluntarily went to trial after entering into alleged settlement agreement). But a record of oral negotiations is not required, and the district court may assess the credibility of witnesses in determining whether an agreement was reached. See id. at 373-74, 119 N.W.2d at 743.
Second, appellant argues that even if there was a settlement agreement, respondents abandoned the agreement by proceeding to trial two days after entering into it and by filing a motion for new trial shortly thereafter. Any c
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|