 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nyman v. B & B Quality Homes8/2/2005
Believing the parties settled their faulty construction/product liability dispute, B&B Quality Homes, LLC filed a motion to enforce the parties' settlement. The court denied its motion because the parties decided to continue negotiations. On appeal, B&B contends the settlement was binding. We agree, and reverse.
FACTS
Lawana Nyman purchased a condominium built by B&B in the late 1990s. During the first year, she allegedly experienced various problems with the Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) system. Ms. Nyman complained to both B&B and Dayco, Inc., the installer of the HVAC system and eventually sued both companies.
In early 2004, Ms. Nyman sought $15,000 to settle the matter with B&B. On March 10, 2004, B&B's attorney e-mailed Ms. Nyman's attorney, offering $15,000 and requesting confirmation of the settlement. On the same day, Ms. Nyman's attorney replied, by e-mail, stating:
The case is settled at $15,000. I will call the court administrator to cancel the trial. Lawana Nyman will sign a release and I will sign a stipulation and order of dismissal upon the sending of the check for $15,000, with the documents.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 19.
The parties then negotiated the release language of the settlement. At Ms. Nyman's request, B&B agreed to take out certain objectionable language. On March 30, Ms. Nyman's attorney notified B&B's attorney that Ms. Nyman would sign the release agreement prepared by B&B and modified by Ms. Nyman upon the receipt of the $15,000. On April 6, Ms. Nyman's attorney notified B&B's attorney that if the check was sent immediately, he would strike a motion to confirm the settlement he previously filed. On April 7, B&B sent the check and the motion to confirm was stricken.
Ms. Nyman did not return the release agreement, nor did she cash the check. B&B attempted to contact Ms. Nyman's attorney, to no avail. On May 5, Ms. Nyman returned the $15,000 check because she felt the agreement process had 'gone on too long.' Report of Proceedings (RP) at 4. On May 10, B&B filed a motion to enforce the settlement. The court denied its request, finding, 'there was {a} $15,000 settlement on March 10th then the parties decided to negotiate further.' RP at 6. This court granted discretionary review.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying B&B's motion to enforce the settlement.
We review the decision to enforce a settlement agreement de novo, as this court would a summary judgment. Lavigne v. Green, 106 Wn. App. 12, 16, 23 P.3d 515 (2001). The party moving to enforce a settlement agreement has the burden of proving no genuine dispute exists over the existence and material terms of the agreement. Brinkerhoff v. Campbell, 99 Wn. App. 692, 696-97, 994 P.2d 911 (2000).
CR 2A and RCW 2.44.010 guide us. CR 2A provides:
No agreement or consent between parties or attorneys in respect to the proceedings in a cause, the purport of which is disputed, will be regarded by the court unless the same shall have been made and assented to in open court on the record, or entered in the minutes, or unless the evidence thereof shall be in writing and subscribed by the attorneys denying the same.
RCW 2.44.010(1) provides an attorney has authority:
To bind his client in any of the proceedings in an action or special proceeding by his agreement duly made, or entered upon the minutes of the court; but the court shall disregard all agreements and stipulations in relation to the conduct of, or any of the proceedings in, an action or special proc
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.
|
|