Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46246,46246 |
| Citation | 309 Minn. 408,245 N.W.2d 837 |
| Parties | , 84 A.L.R.3d 1042 MR. STEAK, INC., Appellant, v. SANDQUIST STEAKS, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A court order which merely acknowledges that plaintiff and defendant have settled their pending lawsuit with approval of a written settlement stipulation executed by counsel without imposing any express commands or prohibitions upon defendant is not a sufficient basis for plaintiff to seek civil contempt remedies for defendant's violations of the settlement agreement.
Kelley & O'Neill, James C. O'Neill and Timothy J. Dwyer, St. Paul, for appellant.
Bowman & Bruns and Larry K. Houk, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
Plaintiff-franchiser appeals from an order denying its motion to hold defendant, its former franchisee, in constructive civil contempt of court for alleged intentional violations of the terms of a settlement stipulation dismissing the parties' pending lawsuit and dissolving their franchise relationship. In our view, the issue presented is whether the remedy of constructive civil contempt in the form of judicial sanctions and indemnity for loss pursuant to Minn.St. c. 588 is available to enforce compliance with the terms of the settlement stipulation which, at the request of the parties, was 'approved' by an order of the court immediately prior to the trial of the lawsuit. We hold that the remedy is not available under the facts of this case and affirm.
Since 1968, defendant has operated a restaurant franchised by plaintiff. After some 2 years of litigation, the parties resolved their dispute by a written stipulation executed May 30, 1975, dismissing the pending lawsuit 3 days before the trial was scheduled. The settlement, which was in large part executory, dissolved their franchise relationship with defendant retaining ownership and operation of the restaurant facility. It called for the exchange of funds and mutual releases and, significant to plaintiff's effort to hold defendant in contempt required defendant within a specified time to remove all evidence of affiliation with plaintiff's franchised operations. The trial court was informed of the settlement and, upon counsel's joint request, entered the following order on June 2, 1975:
'IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
'That the Settlement Stipulation dated May 30, 1975, executed by counsel for the above-named parties, be and it is hereby approved.'
Upon allegations of defendant's willful violation of the terms of the settlement, plaintiff sought an order adjudging defendant in constructive contempt of the court's order approving the settlement pursuant to Minn.St. 588.01, subd. 3(3); determining the penalty therefor, § 588.10; and providing indemnification for plaintiff's loss or injury, § 588.11. After hearing testimony and argument on August 13, 1975, the trial court, in denying plaintiff relief, explained:
The question of whether the remedy of constructive civil contempt is available to enforce a settlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.D v. M.T.
...remains an agreement only, and may be enforced by an action for breach of contract but not by contempt. Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc., 309 Minn. 408, 245 N.W.2d 837 (1976); Fry v. Schwarting, 4 Va.App. 173, 178-179, 355 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1987); Gingold v. Gingold, 48 A.D.2d 623, ......
-
Voicestream v. Rpc Properties
...An agreement entered into as compromise and settlement of a dispute is contractual in nature. Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc., 309 Minn. 408, 410, 245 N.W.2d 837, 838 (1976); Jallen v. Agre, 264 Minn. 369, 373, 119 N.W.2d 739, 743 (1963). As such, a settlement agreement "can be en......
-
Newstrand v. Arend, A14–0723.
...to be enforced by contempt must clearly define the acts to be performed by the alleged contemnor.Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc., 309 Minn. 408, 411, 245 N.W.2d 837, 838 (1976). The supreme court has indicated that an order is not “a sufficient basis for constructive civil contemp......
-
Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman
...receiver is so vague and indefinite as to make willful disobedience of that order impossible, citing, Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc., 309 Minn. 408, 245 N.W.2d 837 (1976), where the Minnesota Supreme Court outlined the specificity required for a finding of civil In addressing the......