PENDERGRAFT v. BROOKS
2021 OK CIV APP 24
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Pendergraft sued Brooks for negligence after a car accident and the parties attended a court-ordered mediation on August 27, 2019.
- At mediation they signed a Notice of Settlement: Brooks would pay $12,000 and Pendergraft would execute a full release and dismiss with prejudice; the form included typed terms and two handwritten interlineations initialed by Pendergraft relating to a letter to Pendergraft's insurer and who would negotiate with BCBS.
- A dispute arose over the content of the insurer letter and who would negotiate with BCBS; Pendergraft refused to honor the settlement and sought to void it, citing the interlineations and that he was on medication during mediation.
- Brooks filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement; the district court granted the motion in a detailed September 26, 2019 judgment, finding an enforceable settlement contract and ordering that upon deposit of settlement funds with the clerk the case would be dismissed with prejudice.
- Brooks deposited the settlement funds with the court clerk and, on October 2, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing Pendergraft's case with prejudice; Pendergraft appealed only the October 2 dismissal order.
- The appellate court noted Pendergraft did not timely appeal the September 26 judgment enforcing the settlement and affirmed the October 2 dismissal, concluding the dismissal merely effectuated a contract term and that Pendergraft failed to show error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a settlement reached at mediation was valid and enforceable | Interlineations were added after mediation and materially changed terms; Pendergraft was on medications and lacked capacity | Parties signed and initialed the Notice; mediator present; plaintiff admitted signing and no coercion; settlement is a binding contract | Settlement was valid and enforceable; district court correctly granted motion to enforce (judgment entered Sept. 26) |
| Whether the court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff's competency/consent | Plaintiff claimed he was medicated and had a witness who could attest to his behavior and lack of understanding | No supporting evidence or verified affidavit in record; plaintiff did not request hearing below; admissions in the response resolved factual dispute | No abuse of discretion; hearing not required; issue not preserved for appeal |
| Whether the October 2, 2019 dismissal with prejudice was improper | Dismissal should be voided because plaintiff did not agree to interlineations or settlement | Dismissal was an express term of the enforceable settlement and was triggered by deposit of funds with the clerk | Dismissal affirmed; it simply effectuated a term of the enforceable settlement and plaintiff failed to show error or timely challenge the enforcement judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re De-Annexation of Certain Real Property from City of Seminole, 204 P.3d 87 (Okla. 2009) (treating motion to enforce settlement like a summary-judgment proceeding)
- Winterhalder v. Burggraf Restoration, Inc., 256 P.3d 84 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (once parties settle, rights as to subject matter are fixed by contract)
- Corbett v. Combined Commc'ns Corp. of Okla., Inc., 654 P.2d 616 (Okla. 1982) (settlement and release in prior litigation can preclude subsequent claims)
- Rader v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 934 P.2d 332 (Okla. 1997) (settlement agreement is a contract enforceable like any other)
- Shawnee Hosp. Auth. v. Dow Constr., Inc., 812 P.2d 1354 (Okla. 1991) (court looks to settlement terms when resolving post-settlement disputes)
- Bass Furn. & Carpet Co. v. Finley, 263 P. 130 (Okla. 1927) (a party signing a clear written instrument is bound by it)