Tolbert v. Hyatt Mgmt. - 496 So. 2d 1054 (La. Ct. App. 1986)

Rule:

La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3071 provides that a compromise to put an end to a lawsuit must be either reduced into writing or recited in open court and capable of being transcribed from the record of the proceeding. The article further provides that an agreement recited in open court confers upon each party the right of judicially enforcing its performance, although its substance may thereafter be written in a more convenient form. Recital of the agreement in open court must make full disclosure of the terms, however, so that the parties concerned are fully apprised of their rights and obligations.

Facts:

On April 11, 1983, Deborah Williams Tolbert filed a petition for damages from a slip and fall on a staircase in the Louisiana Superdome. After discovery, the parties reached a settlement, which was made a matter of record in testimony and notes of evidence on October 30, 1984. At the hearing, plaintiff's attorney testified in open court,"It's been stipulated by and between counsel that there is a compromise settlement.  Payment would require that the plaintiff is to execute a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. The terms of the settlement are as follows: That she will be paid for the sum of general damages $4,000 by the defendant, plus all medical bills arriving out of this accident that are proven with documented receipts, plus . . . up to $200.00 documented court costs." After hearing further from both attorneys, the trial judge directly talked to Tolbert and asked her multiple times whether she understood the settlement terms and what she has to do. Tolbert affirmatively answered all the questions. Thus, the trial judge allowed the settlement. 

However, despite her assurances to the judge, Tolbert subsequently refused to sign a written release or accept a $6,211.30 check tendered by defendant in full and final settlement of the matter. On defendant's "Rule To Compel Execution Of Settlement Documents", the trial judge thereafter rendered a judgment ordering Tolbert to execute the settlement documents in accordance with her earlier acceptance in open court. Appealing, Tolbert contends that in agreeing to the settlement she thought she would receive $4,000.00 net after all deductions. According to her, it was not until after the gross figure was agreed upon that she received a detail itemization from her attorney revealing that over $1,500.00 in deposition and litigation expenses as well as medical bills, would be deducted from the total settlement amount and that she would receive only the remainder less advances previously paid to her by her attorney. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in ordering Tolbert to execute the written settlement on the ground that she misunderstood the terms of the settlement?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The transcript in the instant case reveals that the essential terms of the settlement were fully disclosed to Tolbert in open court. It was made clear to her that she was to be paid $4,000.00 in general damages, plus documented medical bills, plus up to $200.00 in documented court costs. It should have been obvious to her that any other litigation expenses or undocumented medical bills incurred by her would not be paid by defendant and would have to be deducted from her gross settlement amount. Although Tolbert stated at the later hearing that her attorney had not explained that any payments would be deducted from the $4,000.00 in general damages, the attorney stated that Tolbert was "well aware of what the settlement was. . . ." Her attorney further stated that he was willing to "forego" his contingency fee and give Tolbert the net settlement proceeds minus his out-of-pocket expenses in the litigation.