Estate of Cole v. Ferrell
163 So. 3d 921
Miss.2012Background
- Ford seeks to preserve confidentiality of a settlement between Ford and the Cole estate in a related fee-dispute action.
- The chancery court denied Ford’s motions to seal the settlement and related documents and to close proceedings.
- The action centers on disputes over expenses, a contingency-fee agreement, and a fee-sharing agreement among the Coles and their attorneys.
- Ford argues the settlement terms, including the amount, should be confidential and not admitted into the fee-dispute proceedings.
- The chancellor found no overriding public interest to seal, balancing public access against confidentiality, and denied confidentiality.
- This interlocutory appeal asks whether confidentiality should be preserved and whether the fee-dispute transcript may remain open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the settlement a public record or private contract? | Ford argues the settlement is confidential and should be sealed. | Attorneys contend records are public and seal should be discretionary, subject to the Public Records Act. | Settlement is private; confidentiality should be preserved. |
| Does state policy favoring settlements overcome public access? | Policy favoring settlement supports confidentiality despite public-access presumptions. | Court should still balance public access and confidentiality under discretion. | Public access not outweighed; confidentiality should be preserved as practical. |
| Is there an overriding public interest requiring disclosure of the settlement terms? | Public interest exists due to public concern in vehicle safety and possible public harm. | No strong public-interest factor mandates disclosure of the confidential terms. | No overriding public interest; confidentiality justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Braddock Law Firm, PLLC v. Becnel, 949 So.2d 38 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (respecting confidentiality in fee-splitting dispute; confidential settlement terms can be kept private)
- Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (Miss. 2004) (confidentiality provisions not used against clients; disclosure may be limited)
- Pollard v. State, 205 So.2d 286 (Miss. 1967) (records of chancery/circuit clerks are public documents)
- Bank of America v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986) (district court abuses discretion by sealing; balancing required when facts involve settlements)
- SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1993) (balancing test for sealing; public-interest considerations depend on context)
- Chantey Music Publ’g., Inc. v. Malaco, Inc., 915 So.2d 1052 (Miss. 2005) (settlement agreements are highly favored and will be upheld to resolve disputes)