Williams v. Homecomings Fin. Network, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00371-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00371-COA ; 2011-CT-00371-SCT ; 2011-CT-00371-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-23-2013 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Admission of deposition - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(C) - Authority of attorney Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): James, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Griffis, P.J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Procedural History: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2011 Appealed from: Madison County Chancery Court Judge: Janace Harvey Goree Disposition: GRANTED APPELLEE’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case Number: 2008-472 |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and our original opinion is withdrawn with this opinion substituted in lieu thereof. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Samuel Williams and Carolyn Williams |
DAMON RAMON STEVENSON |
||
| Appellee: | Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. | J. DOUGLAS MINOR JR. ERIN DIANE SALTAFORMAGGIO |
|
|
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: | Contract - Admission of deposition - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(C) - Authority of attorney |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Samuel and Carolyn Williams brought suit against Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., alleging Homecomings conspired to defraud the Williamses by procuring fraudulent appraisals and entering into loan agreements with them that included repayment terms exceeding what they could afford. Approximately fifteen other plaintiffs, all represented by the same counsel as the Williamses, filed substantially similar lawsuits against Homecomings and other defendants. Attorney Precious Martin signed the complaint against Homecomings on behalf of the Williamses. In 2008, the Williamses, as well as the other plaintiffs with similar claims, reached a global settlement agreement with Homecomings. The settlement terms called for a modification of each plaintiff’s note. As to the Williamses, the modification reduced the amount owed to $460,000, changed their monthly interest and principal payments to $3,283.57, and set their initial interest rate at 7.250%. Homecomings agreed to and waived the past due and currently owed principal and interest, late fees, escrows, and other fees. Homecomings also agreed to pay $16,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs in each action. The terms of the settlement also provided that all plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against Homecomings. Martin, as counsel of record for the Williamses, agreed on their behalf to the terms of the settlement offered by Homecomings. The parties to the settlement agreement, including the Williamses, filed an agreed order of dismissal without prejudice. Homecomings sent the Williamses’ counsel, Martin, the settlement agreement, along with an agreed final judgment of dismissal with prejudice and the settlement proceeds. Homecomings was later advised that the documents were executed by all of the plaintiffs in the settlement except for the Williamses, who refused to sign the documents. Homecomings filed a motion to enforce the settlement. The chancellor entered an order granting Homecomings’ motion to enforce the settlement. The Williamses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The court wanted testimony from Martin presented at the scheduled evidentiary hearing, but due to a trial conflict, Martin could not attend the hearing on the motion. The parties agreed that Martin would testify by deposition. During the deposition, Martin explained that he did not personally meet with the Williamses to discuss the terms of the settlement, but he stated that another attorney had met with them and that they had agreed to accept the proposed settlement. When the chancellor heard arguments on Homecomings’ motion to enforce the settlement, new counsel for the Williamses objected to Martin’s deposition being admitted into evidence. The Williamses now argue that the chancellor erred by admitting the deposition of their counsel into evidence, because Martin’s statements expressing that another attorney informed him that the Williamses accepted the settlement agreement constitute hearsay. Martin’s deposition shows that he testified that he possessed authority from the Williamses to act as their counsel with respect to their claims against Homecomings and as to all settlement matters. In fact, Martin signed the complaint against Homecomings on behalf of the Williamses. Also, the Williamses were present during the deposition and had the opportunity to question Martin while he was under oath. Under M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(C), a statement is not hearsay if “[t]he statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject[.]” An attorney is presumed to have the authority to speak for and bind his client. The record provides substantial evidence supporting Martin’s authority as counsel of record to bind the Williamses to the agreement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
