Barlow v. Finegan, 76 A.3d 803

Minors Kimberly Foth and John Barlow were parties to a proposed $15,000 tort settlement ($7,500 each) reached without prior court approval.
Superior Court entered final judgment and granted a motion to enforce the settlement before holding any minors’ settlement hearing.
This Court vacated that judgment and remanded for a minors’ settlement hearing under 12 Del. C. § 3926 and Superior Ct. Civ. R. 133, directing presentation of medical evidence and arguments on fairness.
On remand, the Superior Court held a hearing, reviewed records and testimony, and concluded a 50/50 division was fair, although it stated that on a fresh apportionment it would have split $10,000 to Foth and $5,000 to Barlow.
The Supreme Court found the Superior Court focused on enforcing the agreement rather than independently approving the settlement on a clean slate as required by statute and rule.
Result: Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with § 3926 and Rule 133; jurisdiction not retained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a minor settlement reached without prior court approval is binding	Foth argued the attorney had authority to settle and the agreement should be enforced	Barlow argued court approval was required and enforcement without hearing was improper	The court held § 3926/Rule 133 require independent court approval; settlement was not binding without it
Proper role of the court at a minors’ settlement hearing	Foth urged enforcement of the parties’ negotiated apportionment	Barlow (and Court) emphasized the court must independently assess fairness to minors	The court held the judicial inquiry must start on a “clean slate” and independently approve or reject the settlement
Whether Superior Court could simply enforce the parties’ apportionment when it had reservations	Foth contended enforcement of agreed split was acceptable	Barlow contended enforcement cannot substitute for independent approval under statute/rule	The court held that enforcement without independent approval is impermissible; court must make its own determination
Remedy for failure to comply with § 3926/Rule 133	Foth sought affirmance of the judgment and enforced division	Barlow sought remand for proper hearing; Court of Appeals previously remanded for hearing	The court reversed the Superior Court judgment and remanded for further proceedings under § 3926 and Rule 133

Vance v. Irwin, 619 A.2d 1163 (Del. 1993) (attorney authority and agency principles in litigation)
Trans World Airlines v. Summa Corp., 394 A.2d 241 (Del. Ch. 1978) (agency/representative litigation principles)
Gebhart v. Ernest DiSabatino & Sons, Inc., 264 A.2d 157 (Del. 1970) (party bound by acts of lawyer-agent)
Jane Doe 30's Mother v. Bradley, 64 A.3d 379 (Del. 2012) (procedural guidance on settlement petitions for minors)