Glaze v. Glaze

CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals
Writing for the CourtEDWARD N. SCRUGGS
Citation477 So.2d 435
Decision Date26 June 1985
PartiesEdna Sue GLAZE v. James Ray GLAZE. Civ. 4707.

Page 435

477 So.2d 435
Edna Sue GLAZE
v.
James Ray GLAZE.
Civ. 4707.
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
June 26, 1985.
Rehearing Denied July 31, 1985.
Certiorari Denied Nov. 1, 1985
Alabama Supreme Court 84-1197.

Stephen K. Simpson of Smith, Cruse & Law, Montgomery, for appellant.

J. Cliff Heard, Montgomery, for appellee.

EDWARD N. SCRUGGS, Retired Circuit Judge.

This is a divorce case.

During the trial the husband introduced into evidence a written compromise proposal, which was in the form of a property and marital settlement agreement. His attorney had previously submitted that proposal to the wife's attorney, and it had never been accepted by the wife. That proposal would have settled all disputed issues in the case. When the offer was made by the husband to introduce that compromise proposal as an exhibit, the following occurred:

"MR. POOL: Your Honor, of course, we are objecting to the offer of compromise.

"THE COURT: You don't want to know how he wants to--

Page 436

"MR. POOL: Judge, I just don't, since it is an offer of compromise, I don't think it's admissible.

"THE COURT: It's not exactly a compromise. In any divorce case one party wants one thing and one party wants something else.

"MR. POOL: Judge, my only objection is that it was an offer of compromise.

"THE COURT: I am going to overrule to the objection that was an offer of compromise and let it in. I am letting it in on the grounds that these cases are different than civil cases and by their very nature there are certain proposals. It's not viewed by this Court as an offer of compromise for them or for you.

"MR. ROEMER: Just submit it for a good faith offering.

"THE COURT: I understand.

"(Whereupon, Petitioner's Exhibit Number Six was marked for identification and received into evidence.)"

There is no doubt that exhibit six was an offer of settlement. Apparently, the husband's attorney introduced it into evidence to indicate that his client had made a good faith offer to settle, but such was not an issue in the case. An additional reason for the exhibit was to indicate to the trial court what the husband's wishes and desires were as to the major issues in the litigation.

"An offer of compromise by one party to the other in a civil action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, is inadmissible." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 188.01(1) (3d ed. 1977). That rule is founded upon grounds of public policy. S. Gard, Jones on Evidence § 13:51 (6th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc., 1150040
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 29, 2017
    ...by one party to another in a civil action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, [are] inadmissible. Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985). Alabama courts also recognize that conversations in connection with settlement negotiations are inadmissible. Chandler v. Owen......
  • Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 27, 1987
    ...compromise by one party to another in a civil action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, is inadmissible. Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Alabama courts also recognize that conversations in connection with settlement negotiations are inadmissible. Chandler v.......
  • Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Goodin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 2, 1988
    ...before or after the litigation is begun, are inadmissible. Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson, 506 So.2d 317 (Ala.1987); Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). This rule eliminates the danger that offers of compromise, if admitted, might imply the strength of one party's case or......
  • Norfolk Southern R.R. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 28, 1996
    ...by one party to another in a civil Page 694 action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, [are] inadmissible. Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Alabama courts also recognize that conversations in connection with settlement negotiations are inadmissible. Chandler v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc., 1150040
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 29, 2017
    ...by one party to another in a civil action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, [are] inadmissible. Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985). Alabama courts also recognize that conversations in connection with settlement negotiations are inadmissible. Chandler v. Owen......
  • Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 27, 1987
    ...compromise by one party to another in a civil action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, is inadmissible. Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Alabama courts also recognize that conversations in connection with settlement negotiations are inadmissible. Chandler v.......
  • Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Goodin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 2, 1988
    ...before or after the litigation is begun, are inadmissible. Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson, 506 So.2d 317 (Ala.1987); Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). This rule eliminates the danger that offers of compromise, if admitted, might imply the strength of one party's case or......
  • Norfolk Southern R.R. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 28, 1996
    ...by one party to another in a civil Page 694 action, whether before or after the litigation is begun, [are] inadmissible. Glaze v. Glaze, 477 So.2d 435 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Alabama courts also recognize that conversations in connection with settlement negotiations are inadmissible. Chandler v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT