Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by denying a postjudgment motion without interpreting and enforcing a settlement agreement entered into by the parties' attorneys. The court reversed and remanded for construction of the agreement and reconsideration of the postjudgment motion, without reaching the merits of the setoff issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by denying Comalander's Rule 59 and Rule 60 postjudgment motion without construing and enforcing the settlement agreement.
- Whether Comalander's insurance counsel had authority to bind him to the settlement agreement.
- Whether the trial court's setoff of the verdicts and calculation of interest were proper.
Holdings
- An attorney representing a client in litigation has authority under Ala. Code § 34-3-21 to bind the client to a written settlement agreement concerning the action, and Comalander's insurance counsel had authority to bind Comalander to the agreement.
- The trial court was required to construe the settlement agreement and rule on Comalander's Rule 59 and Rule 60 motion consistently with that construction; refusing to consider the agreement was reversible error.
Key quotations
“Because the record indicates that the trial court did not consider the terms of the settlement agreement when it ruled on Comalander's postjudgment motion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for the trial court to construe the terms of the settlement agreement and to rule on Comalander's postjudgment motion in accordance with its construction of the settlement agreement.” (1090)
“In doing so, we do not reach the merits of Comalander's substantive claims.” (1090)
Factual background
Comalander contracted with George and Amy Spottswood to build a house and later sued for unpaid construction invoices and enforcement of a materialman's lien. The Spottswoods counterclaimed for negligence, fraud, and slander of title. While the jury deliberated, Comalander's insurance counsel, with the consent of his personal counsel, agreed to settle all claims held by the Spottswoods for a payment between $200,000 and $400,000, while waiving appeals on counterclaim issues. The jury then awarded Comalander $80,766.11 and the Spottswoods $41,300, and the trial court set off the awards and added interest.
Procedural history
Comalander sued the Spottswoods for breach of a construction contract and to enforce a materialman's lien. The Spottswoods counterclaimed for negligence, fraud, and slander of title. During jury deliberations, Comalander's insurance counsel, with the knowledge and consent of his personal counsel, entered into a settlement agreement resolving the Spottswoods' claims for between $200,000 and $400,000. After the jury returned verdicts for both sides, the trial court set off the verdicts and added interest, then denied Comalander's Rules 59 and 60 motion without construing the settlement agreement. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions.
Remand instructions
The trial court must construe the terms of the settlement agreement and rule on Comalander's postjudgment motion in accordance with that construction.