Salsman v. Brown
51 A.3d 892
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Vera Salsman owned land in Wyndham Township, PA; Browns allegedly would receive 42 acres for $27,300 and convey other land to heirs.
- Dec 1, 2008: Salsmans filed breach of contract claim for unpaid balance of $23,000.
- March 15, 2010: Beirne, Brown’s attorney, offered to settle for $23,000 with other stipulations.
- April 12, 2010: Salsmans’ attorney accepted the settlement offer.
- Oct 13, 2010: Salsmans filed petition to enforce the settlement for Browns’ noncompliance.
- Dec 7, 2010: hearing held; Browns claim Beirne had no express authority to offer settlement; Browns later obtained new counsel; trial court later granted enforcement, which was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Beirne have express authority to bind Browns to the settlement? | Beirne was authorized to negotiate/offer settlement. | Brown did not authorize Beirne to make the offer; no express authority. | Remand required to determine express authority; reversal necessary. |
| Whether attorney Beirne may testify about confidential communications with Browns. | Privilege should bar testimony. | Privilege may be waived because Browns attacked counsel’s integrity. | Beirne admissible; privilege inapplicable due to waiver exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reutzel v. Douglas, 582 Pa. 149, 870 A.2d 787 (2005) (attorney must have express authority to bind client to settlement)
- Doll v. Loesel, 288 Pa. 527, 136 A.2d 796 (1927) (attorney not privileged when defending against client’s attack on integrity)
- Loutzenhiser v. Doddo, 436 Pa. 512, 260 A.2d 745 (1970) (waiver when client attacks counsel’s integrity)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 558 Pa. 478, 738 A.2d 406 (1999) (client’s attack on counsel may waive privilege)
- Carbis Walker, LLP v. Hill, Barth & King, LLC, 930 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 2007) (attorney-client privilege burden-shifting framework)
- Bonds v. Bonds, 455 Pa. Super. 610, 689 A.2d 275 (1997) (waiver considerations when privilege is misused)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fleming, 924 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2007) (waiver implications for privileged communications)