USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN Sette ek etek ROBERT E. ALLEN, ) CIVIL NO. ST-09-CV-213 Plaintiff, v. ACTION FOR DAMAGES KELLEN ST. LUCE and KATHLEEN ST. LUCE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED | ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER came on for a hearing on March 6, 2012 on the Defendants Kellen St. Luce and Kathleen St. Luce’s Renewed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.' The Motion requests that the Court enter an order enforcing the settlement agreement allegedly entered into between the parties on May 18, 2011. The Court finds that the settlement agreement is valid. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Defendants Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter Judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement. FACTS This case began with a vehicular accident on June 7, 2007 in which the Plaintiff was injured after being struck by Defendant Kellen St. Luce. St. Luce was driving the vehicle of his mother, Defendant Kathleen St. Luce. The Verified Complaint was filed, initiating this matter, on April 29, 2009. On or about June 5, 2009 the Plaintiff demanded $10,000, constituting the policy limits from the Defendants’ insurance providers. The Plaintiff reaffirmed this settlement demand of $10,000, by letter, after rejecting the Defendants’ settlement offers of $4,500 on September 9, 2010 and $6,000 on September 28, 2010. On December 16, 2010, the Defendants wrote the Plaintiff and accepted the settlement offer of $10,000. The Defendants reaffirmed this acceptance on January 5, 2011. On February 4, 2011, the Plaintiff responded to the Defendants’ correspondence and treated the Defendants’ previous correspondence as an offer to settle. The Plaintiff purported to reject the “offer” and demand $100,000 for settlement. On February 17, 2011, the Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opposed the Motion on March 16, 2011. On or about March 31, 2011, Attorney ' Chris Kroblin, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Robert E. Allen. Plaintiff Robert E. Allen appeared at the hearing in person. Gaylin Vogle, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Defendants. Robert E. Allen v. Kellen St. Luce & Kathleen St. Luce Civil No. ST-09-CV-213 Memorandum Opinion Karin Bentz, the attorney for the Plaintiff at the time, telephoned the Defendants’ counsel and agreed on behalf of her client to accept ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in full settlement of all claims and to release the Defendants and their insurance company from all liability relating to the accident. On the same day, the Defendants contacted the Court and requested that the Court not rule on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement because the parties had reached a settlement. The Defendants sent the Plaintiff a settlement agreement and stipulation for dismissal, and on May 3, 2011 the Plaintiff sent the Defendants a revised release. On May 4, 2011, the Defendants agreed to the revised settlement agreement. On May 10, 2011, the Plaintiff signed the general release settlement agreement before a public notary in Shasta County, California. On May 18, 2011, the Plaintiff sent the Defendants an executed, but incomplete,” copy of the general release settlement agreement as well as the stipulation for dismissal. On or about May 23, 2011, the Plaintiff terminated the services of Attorney Karin Bentz. Attorney Bentz notified the Defendants that Attorney Christopher Allen Kroblin was now claiming to represent the Plaintiff. On March 6, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Court heard testimony from Attorney Bentz. Attorney Bentz testified that she explained to the Plaintiff that the Defendants have no assets, and that she recommended settling the case for the insurance policy limit so the Plaintiff would get money quicker. She also testified that the Plaintiff gave her authority to settle the case for $10,000.00 on March 7, 2011. DISCUSSION The law on enforcing settlement agreements is well established in the Virgins Islands. Once a settlement is reached, the court can enforce the agreement if all its material terms have been agreed upon by the parties.> A valid settlement agreement is enforceable like any other binding contract.’ A trial court may take one of three possible actions to decide a motion to enforce a settlement agreement: (1) hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to determine disputed facts and then enter judgment after taking evidence to prove the agreement and any defenses that the nonmoving party may proffer; (2) dispose of the motion on the pleadings; or (3) treat the motion as akin to one for summary judgment.” In this case, the settlement agreement was never incorporated into a final judgment by this Court and the litigation is still pending. A trial court has the authority to enforce, on motion, a settlement agreement entered into by litigants while litigation is pending.® As such, the Court must decide whether the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement that the Court can * The documents sent by the Plaintiff did not include the Medicare Set Aside. However, the Medicare Set Aside form does not affect the terms of settlement as the Defendants are obligated to pay $10,000.00 regardless of whether the Plaintiff choses to set aside an amount for Medicare. * Pennsbury Village Assocs., LLC v. McIntyre, 11 A.3d 906 (Pa. 2011). * Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009). SISACIS. Compromise & Settlement § 77 (West 2012). ° Berger v. Grace Line, Inc., 343 F. Supp. 755, 756 (E.D.Pa. 1971) aff'd sub nom. Berger v. Grace Line Inc., 474 F.2d 1339 (3d Cir. 1973); Kelly v. Greer, 365 F.2d 669 (3rd Cir. 1966) cert. den. 385 U.S. 1035 (1967). Robert E. Allen y. Kellen St. Luce & Kathleen St. Luce Civil No. ST-09-CV-213 Memorandum Opinion approve. In general, a trial court may not summarily enforce a settlement agreement if material facts are in dispute as to the validity or terms of the agreement.’ On the other hand, a court cannot summarily deny enforcement of a settlement agreement simply because material facts are in dispute; the task is to resolve the dispute.* Because the validity of the agreement was being disputed, the Court appropriately held a hearing. After considering the briefs, testimony, and evidence submitted at the hearing, the Court finds that the Plaintiff voluntarily entered into a binding settlement agreement. The Third Circuit has explained, “An agreement to settle a lawsuit, voluntarily entered into, is binding upon the parties, whether or not made in the presence of the court, and even in the absence of a writing.” “Settlement agreements are encouraged as a matter of public policy because they promote the amicable resolution of disputes and lighten the increasing load of litigation faced by courts.”'? In the Virgin Islands, counsel may enter into a settlement agreement on her client's behalf when she has actual or apparent authority to do so.'! The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law applicable to contracts generally.'? In the Virgin Islands, the local law generally applicable to contracts is the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.’ The creation of a valid contract requires “a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration.” Consideration requires a bargained for performance or a return promise.'> There must be mutual assent to the terms of the contract; where there is no meeting of the minds, there is no contract.'® “The parties’ objective manifestations control in deciding whether they formed a contract by mutual assent.”’’ Manifestations of assent may be made through either words or conduct.'® The case of Nicholas v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc. presents a factual situation not unlike the one before this Court. In Nicholas, the District Court entered judgment on a settlement agreement where the parties had recited the essential terms of the agreement before the court.'? After the recitation, the defendants refused to sign a written settlement agreement. The court held that the ; Bandera v. City of Quincy, 344 F.3d 47 (Ist Cir. 2003). Id. ° Green v. John H. Lewis & Co., 436 F.2d 389, 390 (3d Cir. 1970); see also Beazer East, Inc. v. Mead Corp., 412 F.3d 429, 436 (3d Cir.2005). ° D.R. ex rel. M.R. v. East Brunswick Bd. of Educ., \09 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir. 1997). '' Sanghavi Jewels, Inc. v. Shalhout, CIV. 2011-30, 2012 WL 4462046 (D.V.I. Sept. 27, 2012); see Edwards vy. Born, Inc., 792 F.2d 387, 389-90 (3d Cir. 1986). " See, e.g., Vargo v. Mangus, 94 Fed. App' x 941, 943 (3d Cir. 2004). ''V.1. Code Ann. tit. 1, § 4 (1997). '* Univ. of the V.1. v. Petersen-Springer, 232 F. Supp. 2d 462, 469 (D.V.I. 2002); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 17 (1979). 'S Iq. '° James v. Fitzpatrick, 25 V.I. 124, 127 (Terr. Ct. 1990). "” HSM Constr. Servs., Inc. v. MDC Sys., Inc., 239 Fed. App'x 748, 751 (3d Cir. 2007). 'S See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 18, 19 (1979). "° Nicholas v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc., C1V. 2001-147, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91829 at *13 (D.V.1. Nov. 20, 2007). Robert E. Allen v. Kellen St. Luce & Kathleen St. Luce Civil No. ST-09-CV-213 Memorandum Opinion recitations of the parties were binding and covered all essential terms, and the court entered a judgment approving the settlement agreement.”” In this case, the Plaintiff manifested the required assent to the agreement through the conduct of signing the settlement agreement in the presence of a notary public. The Plaintiff argues that his intention was to settle with the insurance carrier for ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and continue the case against the Defendants. However, it is apparent from the testimony of Attorney Bentz and the executed settlement document itself that the document was meant to dispose of all claims against the Defendants in accordance with the Plaintiff's intentions at that time. The Plaintiff signed the agreement after, according to Attorney Karin Bentz’s credible testimony, Attorney Bentz had explained the material terms and effect of the agreement. The Plaintiff also argues that the Plaintiff's former attorney did not have authority to settle the case. However, it was the Plaintiff's signature on the settlement agreement, and not his attorney’s, that bound him to the contract. This fact notwithstanding, Attorney Bentz stated that the Plaintiff gave her express authority to settle the case. The Court finds Attorney Bentz’s testimony to be credible. Even if her authority was not express, it is clear from the testimony that she had apparent authority to settle the case. Further, the Plaintiff argues that he did not enter into the settlement agreement with the knowledge that the agreement would dispose of the case. To the extent that the Plaintiff is arguing some failure of his attorney to properly represent him, the Court agrees with the Defendants that any issues the Plaintiff has with the representation by his former attorney are not properly brought in opposing a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Whether Attorney Bentz fully informed her client of the consequences of the settlement agreement is not at issue here. The Plaintiff signed the settlement document which states, in a fairly forthright manner, that it disposes of the case in its entirety. CONCLUSION that the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement. The Court will approve the settlement | Ny) After hearing testimony, determining credibility, and analyzing the law, the Court finds | | NV agreement, and grant the Defendants’ motion to enforce. Accordingly, the parties are directed to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. QUE DATED: March / / , 2013 4 H. VELAZ JAMES S. CARROLL III Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands 70 Id. at *6—13, *21 ATTEST: VENEt Clerk of the , , = ~~ EN a | | —) N < {<3} > = < E Zz >! ATTEST: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN Jokkkkk kek ROBERT E. ALLEN, ) CIVIL NO. ST-09-CV-213 Plaintiff, V. ACTION FOR DAMAGES KELLEN ST. LUCE and KATHLEEN ST. LUCE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) Defendants. ) JUDGMENT AND NOW, for the reasons stated in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion of the same date, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants Kellen St. Luce and Kathleen St. Luce’s Renewed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED and AJUDGED that the settlement agreement, signed by Plaintiff Robert E. Allen on May 10, 2011, is valid and enforceable according to its terms; and it is further ORDERED and AJUDGED that Judgment in this matter is entered according to the terms provided in the settlement agreement; and it is further ORDERED that a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and this Judgment shall be directed to counsel of record.! DATED: March [7 2013 bali lle JAMES S. CARROLL Il Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands ' Chris Kroblin, Esq., appears on behalf of Plaintiff Robert E. Allen. Gaylin Vogle, Esq., appears on behalf of the Defendants.