Vaughn v. Rettig
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02592-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-10-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Settlement agreement - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) - Meeting of the minds Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-29-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Carter Bise Disposition: The trial court granted a petition to enforce settlement. Case Number: 01-00871 |
|
| Note: | Nature of Case: Enforcement of a settlement agreement. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CLARENCE VAUGHN, JR. |
DEAN HOLLEMAN |
||
| Appellee: | JOHN C. RETTIG, JR. | JAMES KENNETH WETZEL |
|
|
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: | Settlement agreement - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) - Meeting of the minds |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clarence Vaughn, Jr. and John Rettig, Jr. formed and registered a company known as Campgrounds of the South, L.L.C. Two years later, Vaughn filed a complaint for preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, accounting, appointment of receiver, damages and other relief against Rettig. After hiring a new attorney, Vaughn filed an amended complaint against Rettig seeking to dissolve the incorporated business entity with the assets divided equally between the parties. Thereafter, Rettig’s attorney sent a letter to Vaughn’s attorney proposing that Vaughn purchase Rettig’s interest in the business. When there was no response, Rettig’s attorney sent Vaughn’s attorney another letter submitting another settlement proposal whereby Rettig would buy Vaughn’s interest in the business for the sum of $125,000. According to Rettig’s attorney, he spoke with Vaughn’s attorney by telephone about settlement and then sent him another letter confirming their agreement. Rettig’s attorney later filed a petition to enforce settlement against Vaughn. At the hearing on the matter, Vaughn testified that he never agreed to settle the case against Rettig for $125,000 and that he never had any discussions to settle the matter for $125,000. The court granted the motion, and Vaughn appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Vaughn argues that Rettig’s attorney’s testimony regarding what Vaughn’s attorney stated in their telephone conversations constituted hearsay. M.R.E. 801(d)(2) allows admission of a statement offered against a party which is made by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his, agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship. Therefore, the statement was admissible. Issue 2: Settlement Vaughn argues that his attorney did not have authority to conduct settlement negotiations and settle his claims since the attorney was authorized only to conduct litigation. It is presumed that an attorney who has represented a party is authorized to take all action necessary to conduct the litigation. The burden of showing that the attorney had no authority to act is upon the party denying such authority. Vaughn’s attorney never was called to testify at the hearing on Rettig’s petition to enforce settlement. There are no written documents from his attorney supporting that there was a settlement. When Rettig attempted to enforce the contended settlement, Vaughn testified that he never authorized a settlement and conducted no settlement negotiations with his attorney. There must be a meeting of the minds in order for there to be a settlement. The burden of proving that a meeting of the minds occurred rests upon the party who is claiming benefit from the settlement. Based on the record and the lack of evidence to demonstrate settlement, the court erred in granting Rettig’s petition to enforce settlement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
