IMO: John T. Landon, Jr., Estate
CA 5230-MZ
| Del. Ch. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Decedent John T. Landon Jr. died in 2006; his Will and codicils gave his second wife Martha life estates in several real properties and remainder interests to his children from a prior marriage. Executors are two of those children (Keith and Ann).
- Estate assets: five parcels (including the "Milford Residence," "Billboard Lot," and an "Adjacent Lot"), personal property, and outstanding receivables and debts; third codicil added a no-contest clause reducing challengers to $1 and diverting their share to charity.
- Martha sued heirs in 2006 claiming the Billboard Lot as marital property but later voluntarily dismissed that suit; Executors opened an estate action in 2010 seeking instructions and asserting Martha’s prior suit implicated the no-contest clause.
- Extensive settlement negotiations occurred in 2014–2015. By mid-July 2015 counsel exchanged proposals resolving the key economic terms: disposition/ownership of the Milford Residence, assumption of its home equity line, and allocation of rental income; remaining issues were funeral expenses, personal property allocation, and scope of releases.
- Counsel exchanged letters reflecting agreement; on July 21–22, 2015 counsel represented Martha would accept Ann’s personal property list and split the funeral bill 50/50; Boswell’s July 22 letter memorialized the terms and included a signature block for Martha, which she never signed.
- Executors moved to enforce the settlement on August 12, 2015. Martha (proceeding largely pro se at the hearing) testified she had no recollection of the negotiations. The Master held an evidentiary hearing and found the parties had manifested assent to all essential terms.
Issues
| Issue | Executors' Argument | Martha's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement agreement was formed in July 2015 | Counsel exchanged offers and acceptances; by July 21–22 all essential terms were agreed, so the settlement is enforceable | Martha denies memory of agreeing and never signed the July 22 letter | Enforceable settlement: objective manifestations by counsel established agreement on all essential terms |
| Whether Martha’s unsigned signature meant no binding contract existed | No signature requirement was agreed; absence of signature does not negate a deal unless parties expressly made execution a condition precedent | Argues she never signed and did not assent | Requiring formal execution was not shown to be a condition precedent; signature absence does not void agreement |
| Whether later doubts by Martha or her sons about rental income defeated the agreement | Counsel had already accepted the rental-income allocation; later doubts were not communicated as a new demand | Martha (and sons) contend they later wanted rental income and repudiated earlier agreement | Late, uncommunicated doubts did not prevent formation; objective earlier assent controls |
| Whether Martha’s present inability to recall negotiations invalidates assent | Objective statements by counsel and Martha’s contemporaneous actions (e.g., telling funeral director she would split costs) show assent | Argues lack of present memory and pro se status undermine validity | Subjective memory failure does not negate prior authorized manifestations of assent; agreement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Martin, 820 A.2d 390 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2001) (lay person may not perform legal representation for another; prohibits unauthorized practice of law)