Williams v. Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


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: 06-05-2012
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Admission of deposition - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(C) - Enforcement of settlement - Authority of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, P.J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion
Procedural History: Bench Trial
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: On July 23, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for rehearing and withdrew this opinion and substituted a new opinion in lieu thereof. The current Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO77002.pdf
  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) - Enforcement of settlement - Authority of counsel
Summary of the Facts: 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. 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. 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. 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 stated that due to the number of parties he represented in the settlement discussion, he and his co-counsel, Omar Nelson, had agreed to split up and discuss the terms of the proposed settlement with different parties. Martin explained that he did not personally meet with the Williamses to discuss the terms of the settlement, but he stated that Nelson met with them. Martin testified that Nelson informed him that Nelson had spoken to the Williamses about the settlement terms, and the Williamses had agreed to accept the proposed settlement. Martin confirmed that he had then informed counsel for Homecomings that the Williamses had accepted the settlement agreement. The chancellor entered an order permitting Martin to withdraw as counsel for the Williamses. At the hearing on Homecomings’ motion to enforce the settlement, counsel for the Williamses objected to Martin’s deposition being admitted into evidence. The chancellor overruled the objection and allowed the deposition to be admitted. The chancellor entered an order granting Homecomings’ motion to enforce the settlement. The Williamses appeal.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Williamses argue that the chancellor erred by admitting the deposition of their counsel into evidence, claiming that the deposition included a hearsay statement. Martin’s deposition reveals 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. The chancellor’s order shows that she relied on Martin’s authority as counsel of record to enforce the settlement. M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(C) provides that a statement is not hearsay if the 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. Martin expressed on the record through deposition testimony that he had the authority to bind the Williamses to the terms of the settlement upon learning from Nelson of the Williamses’ alleged acceptance of the proposed settlement. Also, Martin signed the complaint against Homecomings on behalf of the Williamses. Thus, 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