 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McMahan v. McMahan12/5/2005
Rule 31 neutrals to file a report specifically addressing whether both parties appeared and participated in the process); see also Persada, 2002 WL 31640564, at *1 (noting that, in a similar mediation agreement context, the mediator testified "that both parties seemed to fully understand and acquiesce in the agreement"). The mediator in this case was careful not to testify to statements or assertive conduct made by Wife. She did not disclose confidential information or attempt to prove liability via conduct or statements made in the course of the mediation. We find no error in the trial court's decision to receive the testimony of the mediator in this case.
IX.
In summation, we conclude that our recent decision in Myers v. Myers controls the instant case. The parties in Myers, a divorcing husband and wife, reached a settlement agreement after a six-hour mediation session. 2005 WL 936925, at *1. The agreement was memorialized by a five-page written document. Id. The document was drafted on site by the mediator and signed by both parties and their attorneys. Id. The husband's attorney then drafted a marital dissolution agreement, but before it was completed, the wife repudiated the agreement. Id. An evidentiary hearing was held in response to the husband's filing of a motion to enforce the mediation agreement. Id. The wife testified that she believed her husband misrepresented her interest in their property, and that the agreement was therefore unfair. Id. She also testified that she felt pressured to sign the agreement. Id. After considering the wife's testimony and proof regarding fraud, mistake, duress, and any other ground to invalidate the contract, the trial court determined that the wife had simply changed her mind and entered a judgment enforcing the mediation agreement. Id., at *3. This Court affirmed that judgment. Id.
Wife attempts to distinguish the current situation from Myers by stating that the party seeking to repudiate the agreement in Myers did not offer "evidence to dispute the other party's claim that a `meeting of the minds' was reached relative to all essential matters of the purported agreement." In essence, Wife appears to be asserting that the case of Myers v. Myers does not control because, unlike Wife in the instant case, the repudiating party in Myers did not present evidence disputing the parties' intended finality of the signed agreement. This argument is not well-taken. As analogous to the matter now before us, the wife in Myers disputed the husband's contract claim by arguing that her repudiation was permissible under Harbour and by offering evidence regarding her claim of certain contract defenses. The fact that Wife also asserts that the parties never contemplated the mediation agreement as a final document does not sufficiently distinguish the present case from Myers. This additional assertion is merely another contract defense and attempt at rescission. Thus, as previously discussed, the applicable rules of contract law govern. As found by the trial court in the instant case, Wife simply failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a finding that a meeting of the minds did not occur with respect to the finality and intended purpose of the signed mediation agreement.
X.
Wife filed a motion to supplement the record with certain documents. Husband objects to the requested supplementation. There is nothing in the two documents referred to in the motion other than argument and statements of counsel for the parties. The contents of those documents have no bearing on the issues in this case. The motion is denied.
XI.
While we find no merit in the issues raised by Wife, we do not consider this appe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|