Mays v. JULIAN LeCRAW AND CO., INC.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2001 |
| Citation | 807 So.2d 551 |
| Parties | Emanuel MAYS v. JULIAN LeCRAW AND COMPANY, INC. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Lawrence T. King of Goozee, King & Horsley, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellant.
Stephen E. Whitehead and Jennifer A. McCammon of Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1001103.
Emanuel Mays appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to enforce a settlement agreement and from a summary judgment insofar as it relates to any of the three defendants he had sued.
Mays sued his employer, Focus Management, Inc.; Julian LeCraw and Company, Inc.; and Johnny Richey, on October 6, 1999. His complaint alleged retaliatory discharge ( § 25-5-11.1, Ala. 1975), conspiracy, and intentional interference with business relations. Focus Management managed the Valley Ridge Apartments complex in Homewood. Mays was employed as a maintenance and "punchout" technician at that complex. The Julian LeCraw firm ("LeCraw") assumed the managerial duties at the complex on August 10, 1999. Richey was Mays's supervisor at the complex.
The Defendants answered the complaint, and the parties commenced discovery. Although it is not clear from the record when, at some point Mays filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") arising from his employment with Focus Management and LeCraw.
On May 4, 2000, counsel for Mays wrote the following letter to counsel for LeCraw and Focus Management:
This letter was signed by counsel for Mays. Correspondence and settlement negotiations between the parties continued. On June 14, 2000, counsel for Mays wrote the following letter to counsel for LeCraw:
This letter was signed by counsel for Mays and was copied to counsel for Focus Management.
On June 16, 2000, counsel for Julian LeCraw wrote the following letter to counsel for Mays, in response to his letter of June 14, 2000:
The letter was signed by counsel for Le-Craw. The defendants prepared a release and sent it to counsel for Mays to sign; by the terms of that release, Mays, in addition to releasing the claims that have been made the basis of this lawsuit, was also to release his EEOC claim against Focus Management and LeCraw.1 On June 28, 2000, counsel for Mays wrote a letter to counsel for Focus Management, objecting to the release of the EEOC claim. The letter stated:
The letter was signed by counsel for Mays and was copied to counsel for LeCraw.
On July 6, 2000, counsel for Mays wrote the following letter to counsel for Focus Management and LeCraw:
The letter was signed by counsel for Mays. Focus Management paid its share of the purported settlement and was dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice. LeCraw paid Mays nothing.
On August 4, 2000, Mays moved the court to enforce the purported settlement agreement with LeCraw, arguing that the parties had reached a settlement of the claims made the basis of this lawsuit, by their letters of June 14, 2000, and June 16, 2000. LeCraw and Richey responded to the motion to enforce the settlement agreement on that same date, arguing that the parties had not entered into a binding settlement agreement because, they claimed, there had been no "meeting of the minds" between the parties as to the terms of the settlement. LeCraw and Richey, on the same day they filed their response, moved for a summary judgment on the claims made the basis of the lawsuit.
On October 5, 2000, the trial court entered an order denying Mays's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and entered a summary judgment in favor of LeCraw and Richey on Mays's claims alleging retaliatory discharge, conspiracy, and interference with a business relation. Mays appeals from the summary judgment insofar as it relates to LeCraw.
Mays argues that the trial court erred in failing to enforce the settlement agreement, which he claims was clearly and expressly set forth in the letters exchanged between counsel for the parties. We initially note that the trial court heard no ore tenus evidence in this case; therefore, the ore tenus presumption of correctness does not apply. Ex parte Horn, 718 So.2d 694 (Ala.1998). Section 34-3-21, Ala.Code 1975, governs the validity and enforcement of settlement agreements reached between parties at the trial-court level. Ex parte Sims, 627 So.2d 380 (Ala. 1993). Section 34-3-21, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "An attorney has authority to bind his client, in any action or proceeding, by any agreement in relation to such case, made in writing, or by an entry to be made on the minutes of the court." A settlement agreement entered into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fraternity v. Fraternity
...parties to execute the agreement and to comply with it. However, the issue of appealability is not discussed. Mays v. Julian LeCraw & Co., 807 So.2d 551, 554 (Ala.Civ.App.2001), involved an appeal from an order entering a summary judgment and refusing to enforce a settlement Nero v. Chastan......
-
Kappa Sigma Fraternity v. Price-Williams, 1080662 (Ala. 12/18/2009)
...parties to execute the agreement and to comply with it. However, the issue of appealability is not discussed. Mays v. Julian LeCraw & Co., 807 So. 2d 551, 554 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), involved an appeal from an order entering a summary judgment and refusing to enforce a settlement agreement. ......
-
SHERMAN INTERN. CORP. v. SUMMIT GENERAL CONTRACTORS
...and we affirm. Sherman contends that the trial court erred by failing to enforce the settlement agreement. In Mays v. Julian LeCraw & Co., 807 So.2d 551 (Ala.Civ.App.2001), this court "`The law in Alabama is clear in that agreements made in settlement of litigation are as binding on parties......
-
Transcontinental Title Co. Inc. v. Kerney, 2030670.
...v. Baldwin Cty. Sewer Auth., Inc., 480 So.2d 1171 (Ala.1985); Jones v. Bullington, 401 So.2d 740 (Ala.1981); and Mays v. Julian LeCraw & Co., 807 So.2d 551 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001). This case was transferred to this court by the supreme court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code CRAWLEY, THOMPSON,......