Ford Motor Co. v. Ferrell, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-01130-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-01130-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-06-2012 Opinion Author: King, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Fee-sharing agreement - Standard of review - Confidentiality of settlement agreement - Public Records Act - M.R.E. 408 - M.R.A.P. 48(A) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Kitchens, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal/Motion to Seal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-11-2011 Appealed from: Jasper County Chancery Court Judge: H. David Clark Disposition: The chancellor denied Ford’s "Motion to Preserve Confidentiality of Settlement Agreement" and "Notice of Intent to Seek Closure of Proceedings and Sealing of Documents." |
|
| Consolidated: 2011-IA-01103-SCT In the Matter of the Estate of Brian K. Cole, Deceased, Gregory Cole, Administrator: Ford Motor Company v. Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr. and James W. Nobles, Jr.; Jasper Chancery Court 1st District; LC Case #: 2002-A035; Ruling Date: 07/11/2011; Ruling Judge: H. David Clark | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Estate of Brian K. Cole, Gregory Cole, Administrator: Ford Motor Company |
MICHAEL B. WALLACE
JOHN P. SNEED
REBECCA L. HAWKINS
WALKER (BILL) JONES, III
BARRY W. FORD
J. STEPHEN KENNEDY
BRADLEY CLAYTON MOODY |
||
| Appellee: | Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr. and James W. Nobles, Jr. | WAYNE E. FERRELL, JR. JAMES W. NOBLES, JR. CHUCK R. MCRAE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Fee-sharing agreement - Standard of review - Confidentiality of settlement agreement - Public Records Act - M.R.E. 408 - M.R.A.P. 48(A) |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Brian Cole and Ryan Cole were returned to Mississippi from Florida, Brian’s Ford Explorer Sport rolled over, injuring Ryan and resulting in Brian’s death. Gregory Cole, Brian’s brother, opened an estate and filed a wrongful-death action against Ford. A trial resulted in a jury verdict against Ford. Before the trial proceeded to the punitive-damages phase, Ford and the estate reached a settlement agreement. Wayne E. Ferrell Jr., an attorney for the Coles, filed a separate action, “Petition for Accounting, Apportionment of Fees and Expenses and Declaratory Judgment and Request for Injunctive Relief,” naming Ford and other plaintiffs’ counsel as respondents. Based on filings by the attorneys, they were at odds about the expenses incurred by each and the terms of their fee-sharing agreement. The Coles and the attorneys also disputed whether there was a forty percent or a fifty percent contingency-fee agreement. The parties wanted Ford to deposit the settlement funds into the court registry. Ford agreed, contingent upon the Coles submitting an order to dismiss the action with prejudice. The chancery court approved the terms of the settlement, ordered Ford to place the funds in an account, approved disbursement of the undisputed settlement amounts, and ordered the Coles to submit an order of dismissal of the wrongful-death case. Before the fee-dispute trial, Ford filed a motion “to preserve the confidentiality of the settlement agreement between Ford and the Estate and other plaintiffs . . . .” The chancery court instructed Ford to amend its motion, setting forth specific methods by which the terms of the settlement agreement could remain confidential. Afterwards, the parties reached an agreement regarding undisputed funds and asked the court to sign an order which allowed disbursal of the undisputed amounts and directed the order be temporarily under seal. Ford then filed its supplemental motion requesting that the court permanently seal the order allowing for disbursal of the undisputed funds. Ford and the Coles filed a joint motion requesting the chancery court to file the order under seal until it determined whether it should remain sealed. The chancery court filed the order under seal until further notice. Prior to the second hearing, Ford filed a “Notice of Intent to Seek Closure of Proceedings and Sealing of Documents.” The chancellor denied Ford’s motion. Ford sought a stay of the court’s order pending the results of an interlocutory appeal which the chancellor granted. Ford filed an interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted. Ferrell and Nobles (attorneys) filed an appellee’s brief, supporting the chancellor’s rulings. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of review Ford argues that the chancellor’s ruling is an error of law and should be reviewed de novo. The Attorneys argue that whether to seal judicial records is within the court’s discretion and therefore, the chancellor’s ruling should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Whether the court has authority to limit the public’s access to judicial records is a question of law and, thus, is reviewed de novo. But when determining whether the action taken by the court is proper, the appellate court reviews for an abuse of discretion. Because in this case the Court must determine whether the actions taken by the chancellor were proper, the Court reviews for an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Confidentiality of settlement agreement Ford argues that the settlement agreement should not be admitted into evidence during the fee-dispute proceedings, because the settlement agreement is a private contract which should be sealed. If the settlement agreement is admitted into evidence, Ford wants any mention of the settlement amount redacted from pleadings and the trial transcript and wants those portions of the proceeding, in which the settlement amount is discussed, closed to the public. If the settlement agreement were filed with the chancery court, it could be subject to the Public Records Act. Court filings are considered to be public records, unless otherwise exempted by statute. However, parties may file documents under seal, and the Act does not conflict with the court’s authority to declare a public record confidential or privileged. Here, the chancellor determined that Ford had not established “any overriding compelling reason to overcome either the common law or constitutional presumption of public access to judicial records.” Ford argues that the state’s policy favoring settlement was enough to overcome that presumption. Although Mississippi law favors public access to public records, the comment to M.R.E. 408 provides that “public policy [also] favors the out-of-court compromise and settlement of disputes.” Because confidentiality is a “bargained-for element” of this settlement agreement, it should be respected, if practical. The chancery court failed thoughtfully to consider the status of the parties involved in this suit. If a case involves private litigants, and concerns matters of little legitimate public interest, that should be a factor weighing in favor of granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality. The chancellor focused more on the public’s right to access versus the state’s policy favoring settlement agreements. Our appellate courts respect confidential filings as seen by M.R.A.P. 48(A). No matter of great public concern exists in this case. Also, the settlement agreement is not needed to resolve the parties’ claims. The terms of the settlement agreement are not in dispute. The parties’ arguments are over separate issues – expenses, the contingency-fee agreement, and the fee-sharing agreement – none of which has anything to do with the terms of the settlement. To continue to preserve the confidentiality of this agreement, the chancery court should seal the order approving the settlement agreement and should seal the settlement agreement itself (if it is admitted into evidence for any reason). The chancery court should also redact any mention of the settlement amount from future documents and prohibit the parties from mentioning the settlement amount in its proceedings. However, the chancery court may keep the fee-dispute trial’s transcript and proceedings open to the public. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
