Matthes v. David D. Wynkoop & Walker-Walker Family Ltd.

• Decision Date: 30 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. WD 76668.,WD 76668.
• Citation: 435 S.W.3d 100
• Parties: Paul D. MATTHES, Appellant–Respondent, v. David D. WYNKOOP and Walker–Walker Family Limited Partnership, Respondents–Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

435 S.W.3d 100

Paul D. MATTHES, Appellant–Respondent,

v.David D. WYNKOOP and Walker–Walker Family Limited Partnership, Respondents–Appellants.

No. WD 76668.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 30, 2014.

Jeffery T. Adams, Clinton, MO, for Appellant–Respondent.

Joseph R. Swift, Teresa M. Young, St. Louis, MO, for Respondents–Appellants.

Before Division One: JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Presiding Judge, and KAREN KING MITCHELL and ANTHONY REX GABBERT, Judges.

KAREN KING MITCHELL, Judge.

Paul D. Matthes appeals the trial court's judgment granting David D. Wynkoop and Walker–Walker Family Limited Partnership's ¹ motion to dismiss Matthes's personal injury suit and motion to enforce settlement. Matthes raises two points on appeal.² Matthes claims the trial court erred in granting both the motion to dismiss and the motion to enforce settlement because Defendants failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a settlement agreement was reached during oral negotiations between Matthes and Defendants in that testimony from Matthes's former counsel indicating that Defendants' insurer offered to settle Matthes's claims for $17,000 was 1) confidential information admitted in violation of section 491.060; ³ and 2) erroneously admitted hearsay evidence. Matthes contends that, without this testimony, there was insufficient evidence that Defendants offered to settle Matthes's claims for $17,000. Next Matthes contends that the trial court erred in granting both the motion to dismiss and the motion to enforce settlement because if Defendants did not offer to settle Matthes's claims for $17,000, then his communication of willingness to settle for $17,000 constituted an offer (rather than acceptance of a previous offer), and no settlement agreement was reached in that Defendants' response contained new terms, and therefore was not an acceptance, but a counteroffer.

Defendants cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in assessing costs against them because Matthes was not the “prevailing party” in the litigation.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background ⁴

On January 4, 2010, Paul D. Matthes and David D. Wynkoop were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Matthes alleges that Wynkoop rear-ended him while Wynkoop was driving a tractor-trailer operated under the motor carrier authority of Walker–Walker Family Limited Partnership. On February 14, 2010, Matthes entered into a contract with the law firm Beck and Beck ⁵ to represent him in his legal claim against Defendants. On November 9, 2010, Michael Beck sent a demand letter for $50,000 to Defendants' insurer.

John Beck engaged in oral settlement negotiations with Defendants' insurer on Matthes's behalf. During negotiations, Defendants' insurer offered to settle the claim for $17,000.⁶ Beck communicated the terms of the offer to Matthes, and Matthes told Beck to accept the settlement offer. Beck communicated Matthes's acceptance of the settlement offer to Defendants' insurer. Beck then communicated to Matthes that the case was settled. On February 9, 2011, Defendants' insurer sent Beck a release, along with a letter that stated the release would “finalize our claim.” Matthes did not sign the release.

On June 17, 2011, through new counsel, Matthes brought a personal injury action against David D. Wynkoop and Walker–Walker Family Limited Partnership, based on the January 4, 2010 motor vehicle accident. In Defendants' respective answers to Matthes's petition, they raised the affirmative defense that Matthes's claims were barred because Matthes had previously agreed to settle the claims alleged in his petition. On August 16, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion to Enforce Settlement, contending that the parties had entered into a pre-litigation settlement agreement that resolved Matthes's claims.

On March 29, 2013, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement. Beck, the sole witness at the hearing, testified regarding the settlement agreement and release. Beck testified that he represented to Defendants' insurer that he was Matthes's attorney; Beck negotiated with Defendants' insurer; there was an offer made by the insurer, and the offer was communicated to Matthes; Beck had discussed with Matthes the settlement amount, and that Plaintiff would net $10,000; Beck and the insurer came to an agreement with respect to a settlement, and the settlement amount was $17,000; Beck told Matthes the terms of the settlement before he agreed to accept it from the insurer; Matthes advised Beck that he wanted to accept a $17,000 settlement; Matthes agreed to accept the $10,000 net amount out of the $17,000 offer; Beck settled the case on behalf of Matthes; Beck communicated to Matthes that the case was settled; when Beck represented to the insurer “the amount of the demand and that offer was made,” Beck assumed the case was settled; and Beck's impression was that the case was settled prior to him receiving the release.

In regard to the release, Beck testified as follows: he told Matthes that Matthes would “receive X dollars in your pocket, and essentially the terms of this release are they'll pay you X dollars in exchange for you agreeing to never sue anyone regarding this auto accident again,” and Beck told Matthes to read the release and call Beck if he had any questions about it; the written release sent by the insurer contained the essential terms of the settlement; the written release fairly and accurately set out the negotiation Beck had with the representative of the insurer; there was “an agreed-upon settlement,” and Beck did not consider the insurer's letter and release a counteroffer, but rather “just a memorialization of a prior agreement”; Beck did not consider the release terms addressing indemnity and confidentiality to be material terms of the settlement; Beck's mental impression was that the February 9, 2011 letter from Defendants' insurer confirmed the settlement he made with the insurer's representative on behalf of Matthes; Beck did not remember Matthes ever objecting to any portion of the release; Beck never received a signed copy of the release from Matthes; and Beck learned through third parties that the settlement he had made was being rejected by Matthes. In addition, the February 9, 2011 letter and release sent to Beck from Defendants' insurer was admitted at trial. The letter refers to the “final release that will finalize our claim.” Matthes offered no evidence to contradict Beck's testimony.

On April 15, 2013, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defense,⁷ sustaining Defendants' Motion to Enforce the Settlement. The court determined that Defendants made a settlement offer of $17,000, and Matthes accepted the offer. However, the court rejected the release provided by Defendants' insurer, finding that it did not conform to the parties' agreement. Specifically, the court found that provisions of the release pertaining to indemnification, release of physicians and the Highway Department, a confidentiality agreement, and payment of liens to medical providers were not part of the original settlement agreement, and that the release “overreached in terms of what had been negotiated.” The court also determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Matthes agreed to provide the Medicare Mandatory Insurer Reporting Law Confirmation Form to the insurer. The court stated that upon presentation of a release in conformity with the settlement agreement, it would dismiss the cause as barred by the settlement reached.

On May 28, 2013, Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss and enforce judgment, attaching a release purporting to conform to the terms of the settlement as found by the trial court in its previous order, and requesting that the court order Matthes to sign the release and that the court dismiss the case with prejudice.

On June 14, 2013, the trial court entered its judgment. The judgment adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the April 15, 2013 order. The court found that Defendants filed a release that conformed to the terms of the settlement pursuant to the court's April 15, 2013 order and that Matthes refused to sign the release. The court dismissed Matthes's claims with prejudice and assessed costs against Defendants.

Matthes appeals, and Defendants cross-appeal.

Analysis

I. Matthes's Appeal

Matthes raises two points on appeal. In order to succeed on his first point on appeal, Matthes must succeed on his second point on appeal. Therefore, we address his points in reverse order. Matthes contends that the trial court erred in granting both the motion to dismiss and the motion to enforce settlement because Defendants failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties reached a settlement agreement during their oral negotiations in that Defendants failed to prove that they made a $17,000 settlement offer. Specifically, Matthes argues that the only evidence of a settlement offer by Defendants came from the testimony of Matthes's previous counsel, Beck, and that his testimony was erroneously admitted in that 1) he was allowed to testify about confidential information in violation of section 491.060; and 2) his testimony was hearsay. (Point II). Based on his contention that there was insufficient evidence that Defendants offered to settle Matthes's claims for $17,000, Matthes recasts his alleged acceptance of Defendants' offer as an offer to settle for $17,000 ⁸ and recasts Defendants' insurer's letter of February 9, 2011 (including the proposed release) as a counteroffer. Based on this characterization of the evidence, Matthes contends that the trial court erred in granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and to enforce settlement because no settlement agreement was reached in that Defendants' purported acceptance (the February 9, 2011 letter and...