2015 COA 133
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Carol Rademacher (plaintiff) and John Becker (defendant, as trustee) settled civil claims arising from an assault by Becker’s wife, Ms. Becker; the settlement included a $300,000 promissory note payable to Rademacher.
- As part of the same meeting, Rademacher agreed to withdraw/replace a prior victim impact statement and signed a letter to the Boulder District Attorney requesting a deferred sentence for Ms. Becker.
- Defendant made about $35,000 in payments on the note, then defaulted; plaintiff sued to enforce the note.
- At trial a jury found for plaintiff; the trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- On appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals considered whether the settlement and note were unenforceable as contrary to public policy because part of the consideration was Rademacher’s agreement to influence the criminal prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement agreement and promissory note are void as against public policy because part of the consideration was payment for influencing a criminal prosecution | Rademacher argued the agreement was a valid civil settlement and that a victim’s changed position after restitution is not prejudicial to justice | Becker argued the agreement and note are unenforceable because they were given in exchange for Rademacher’s promise to seek leniency in the criminal case | The court held the agreement and note are void as against public policy and reversed the judgment; action remanded with directions to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1996) (courts will not assist in enforcing contracts serving an illegal purpose)
- Bailey v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 255 P.3d 1039 (Colo. 2011) (framework for identifying contracts violating public policy)
- Russell v. Courier Printing & Pub. Co., 95 P. 936 (Colo. 1908) (public-policy doctrine forbidding enforcement of contracts detrimental to public good)
- Ensminger v. Burton, 805 S.W.2d 207 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (contracts to suppress or stifle criminal prosecution will not be enforced)
- Jones v. Trump, 971 F. Supp. 783 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (agreements to refrain from assisting criminal prosecution violate public policy)