PENDERGRAFT v. BROOKS
2021 OK CIV APP 24
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Mark Pendergraft sued Alissa Brooks for negligence after an auto accident and the case went to court-ordered mediation on August 27, 2019.
- Parties and mediator signed a Notice of Settlement at Mediation: Brooks would pay $12,000 and Pendergraft would provide a full release and file a dismissal with prejudice.
- The Notice included additional terms: Brooks to pay mediation fee, Pendergraft to indemnify Brooks against medical liens/subrogation, and defense counsel to draft a letter to Pendergraft's insurer (BCBS) stating certain preexisting conditions were not considered in settlement negotiations; two handwritten interlineations about the BCBS letter were initialed by Pendergraft.
- A dispute arose over the letter's text and who would negotiate with BCBS; Pendergraft refused to honor the settlement and sought to void it; Brooks moved to enforce the settlement.
- The district court granted Brooks' motion in a September 26, 2019 judgment finding an enforceable settlement; Brooks deposited the settlement funds with the court clerk and the court entered an October 2, 2019 dismissal with prejudice.
- Pendergraft appealed only the October 2 dismissal (not the September 26 judgment); the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding the dismissal effectuated a term of the enforceable settlement and that Pendergraft failed to preserve challenges to the enforcement ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties reached an enforceable settlement at mediation | Pendergraft argued he did not consent to later changes and was impaired by medications | Brooks argued the signed Notice (including initials by Pendergraft) created an enforceable contract | Court held settlement was a valid, enforceable contract (district court judgment) |
| Validity of handwritten interlineations on the signed Notice | Pendergraft: interlineations were added after mediation, materially changed terms, and he did not understand/agree | Brooks: Pendergraft initialed the interlineations at the mediation and is bound by the written instrument | Court held plaintiff’s initials and admissions defeated his challenge; written instrument controls |
| Whether the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before enforcing settlement | Pendergraft claimed a witness would show his impaired state and post-mediation behavior | Brooks argued there was no verified evidence or request for hearing below and facts were resolved by plaintiff’s admissions | Court held no error: no verified evidence or timely request for hearing; factual dispute was resolved by plaintiff’s admissions |
| Appealability/preservation: whether plaintiff preserved challenge to enforcement judgment | Pendergraft appealed the October 2 dismissal only and argued errors in dismissal | Brooks argued the September 26 judgment (enforcement ruling) was final and Pendergraft failed to timely appeal it | Court held Pendergraft did not appeal the September 26 judgment within 30 days, so challenges to that judgment are forfeited; dismissal merely effectuated a settlement term |
Key Cases Cited
- Winterhalder v. Burggraf Restoration, Inc., 256 P.3d 84 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (settlement fixes parties’ rights by contract rather than by court judgment)
- In re De-Annexation of Certain Real Property from City of Seminole, 204 P.3d 87 (Okla. 2009) (motion to enforce settlement treated under summary judgment principles)
- Corbett v. Combined Commc'ns Corp. of Okla., Inc., 654 P.2d 616 (Okla. 1982) (prior settlement and release can preclude later claims)
- Rader v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 934 P.2d 332 (Okla. 1997) (settlement agreements are contracts enforceable like other contracts)
- Russell v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1 P.3d 442 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (treatment of factual questions in settlement-enforcement disputes)
- Whitehorse v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 41 (Okla. 2007) (contracts include implied provisions necessary to effectuate parties’ intent)
- Bank of the Wichitas v. Ledford, 151 P.3d 103 (Okla. 2006) (judicial estoppel prevents inconsistent factual positions)
- Bass Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Finley, 263 P. 130 (Okla. 1927) (a party who signs a plain written instrument is generally bound by it)