PENDERGRAFT v. BROOKS
2021 OK CIV APP 24
Okla. Civ. App.2021Background
- Pendergraft sued Brooks for negligence after a car accident and the case was referred to court-ordered mediation.
- At mediation the parties (and mediator) signed a Notice of Settlement: Brooks would pay $12,000 in exchange for a full release and a dismissal with prejudice; the form also required Brooks to draft a letter to Pendergraft's insurer and Pendergraft to indemnify Brooks against medical liens.
- Two handwritten interlineations about the insurer letter/negotiation appear on the Notice and bear Pendergraft's initials; a later dispute arose over the letter text and who would negotiate with Pendergraft's insurer.
- Brooks filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement; the district court granted the motion in a September 26, 2019 judgment finding an enforceable settlement contract.
- Brooks deposited the settlement funds with the court clerk; the court entered an October 2, 2019 order dismissing Pendergraft's case with prejudice. Pendergraft appealed only the October 2 dismissal (not the September 26 judgment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the mediation settlement | Interlineations were added after mediation and materially changed terms; Pendergraft was on medication and lacked capacity | Notice of Settlement (typed + interlineations) was signed/initialed by parties; no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake | Settlement is an enforceable contract; no basis shown to rescind; judgment enforcing settlement affirmed |
| Need for evidentiary hearing before enforcing settlement | Pendergraft asserted a witness and that medication affected his judgment; requests evidentiary hearing | Plaintiff admitted signing and initialing; no proffered testimony in record and no request for hearing below | No error—factual dispute resolved by admissions; no hearing requested below; issue not preserved |
| Effect of deposit of settlement funds and dismissal | Dismissal with prejudice was improper (argued on appeal) | Judgment contemplated deposit; deposit would trigger release and dismissal per settlement terms | Deposit effectuated the contract term; October 2 dismissal implemented settlement and was proper |
| Preservation/timeliness of appeal of enforcement judgment | Seeks review of settlement enforcement | Plaintiff failed to timely appeal the September 26 judgment granting enforcement | Plaintiff did not appeal the September 26 judgment within 30 days; that judgment is not before the appellate court; only the dismissal order was reviewable and is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re De-Annexation of Certain Real Property from City of Seminole, 204 P.3d 87 (Okla. 2009) (summary-judgment procedure governs motions to enforce settlement agreements)
- Corbett v. Combined Commc'ns Corp. of Okla., Inc., 654 P.2d 616 (Okla. 1982) (party rights fixed by settlement contract and prior release can bar subsequent claims)
- Rader v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 934 P.2d 332 (Okla. 1997) (settlement agreement is a contract enforceable like other contracts)
- Bass Furn. & Carpet Co. v. Finley, 263 P. 130 (Okla. 1927) (a party who signs a plain written instrument is bound by it)
- Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc., 194 P.3d 1285 (Okla. 2008) (appellate courts presume district court dismissals are correct absent contrary record)
- Russell v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1 P.3d 442 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (discusses when formation of settlement raises factual vs. legal questions)