Ostler v. Buhler, 970056
| Decision Date | 21 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 970056,970056 |
| Citation | 957 P.2d 205 |
| Parties | 341 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 Neal OSTLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dave BUHLER, an individual, Utah Department of Commerce, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Gary W. DeLand, an individual, Utah Department of Corrections, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, Doug Bodrero, an individual, Duane Richens, an individual, Utah Department of Public Safety, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, and John Does 1 through 25, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Mark A. Besendorfer, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Jan Graham, Attorney General, Annina M. Mitchell, Debra J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
Neal Ostler appeals from the district court's denial of his rule 60(b) motion to set aside an order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We affirm the dismissal.
The State of Utah employed Ostler as a law enforcement officer and discharged him without cause. Ostler sued for wrongful termination, defamation, slander, tortious interference with prospective and existing economic relations, and invasion of privacy. The two parties negotiated a settlement agreement that Ostler signed on August 3, 1994. Ostler agreed to release all claims in return for $50,000.
The Release Agreement included the following recitals:
7. It is Ostler's "goal" as part of this settlement agreement that he be reinstated ... in order to be eligible and participate in the Public Safety Retirement Program with the Utah State Retirement Systems/Board. The Defendants are not a guarantor of that goal and the terms, conditions and enforceability of this release are not conditioned on Ostler achieving that goal.
8. The parties recognize that there are rules and regulations governing the Utah Retirement Systems/Board and Federal and State law that may be unknown at this time. The monies paid herein shall be a full and complete settlement of any and all of Ostler's claims as hereinafter provided even in the event that the plaintiff is unable to achieve his goal as set forth in paragraph 7 above....
3. The monies paid as provided ... herein shall be a full and complete settlement of any and all of Ostler's claims ... without further obligation from the Defendant[s], even in the event it is determined subsequent to the execution of this release that the laws, rules and regulations [governing this agreement or Ostler's reinstatement], prohibit Ostler from achieving his goal as provided in Paragraph 7 of the recitals above. The Defendants are not guarantors of Ostler[']s goal or his eligibility to participate in the Public Safety Retirement Program; and the terms, conditions and enforceability of this release are not conditioned on Ostler achieving that goal....
11. Ostler acknowledges and agrees that no representations, warranties, guarantees or assurances have been made by the Defendants, their agents or employees, the Defendant's [sic] Attorneys, the State of Utah, their agents and employees, or plaintiff[']s attorney, as to Ostler's eligibility to participate in the Public Safety Retirement Program, including but not limited to representations, warranties, guarantees or assurances as to the amount of money that it will take for Ostler to participate in the Public Safety Retirement Program, the technical and legal requirements to participate in the Public Safety Retirement Program, or grade levels acceptable to the Public Safety Retirement Program....
13. It is understood that Ostler will be executing this Release and Settlement Agreement on the 3rd day of August, 1996 and that the terms and conditions of this release will be binding on Ostler from that day forward.
Prior to signing this agreement, Ostler tried to find out how much money he would need to restore his state retirement account to its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ostler v. Buhler
...for $50,000. Kunkel moved to withdraw as counsel, and Ostler unsuccessfully attempted to have the settlement vacated. See Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205 (Utah 1998). Meanwhile, in August 1996, Kunkel filed an attorney's lien1 and gave notice of the lien to both Ostler and opposing counsel; ......
-
Oseguera v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
...60(b) grounds], and this Court will reverse the trial court's ruling only when there has been an abuse of discretion.'" Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205, 206 (Utah 1998) (quoting Larsen v. Collina, 684 P.2d 52, 54 (Utah ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Rule 60(b), subsections (1) through (5), give a number of sp......
-
Franklin Covey Client Sales v. Melvin
...60(b) grounds], and this Court will reverse the trial court's ruling only when there has been an abuse of discretion.'" Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205, 206 (Utah 1998) (citation ANALYSIS A. Personal Jurisdiction ¶ 10 Although Melvin does not present it as such, the challenge to personal jur......
-
Horton v. Khvtisiashvili, Case No. 20020275-CA.
...the trial court acted well within the substantial limits of its discretion in denying Horton's motion to set aside. See Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205, 206 (Utah 1998). In his motion, Horton argued that the supplemental divorce decree was entered either by "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, ......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review – Revised [1]
...that a party has shown "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205, 206 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). (b) Whether the trial court properly denied a motion to vacate a judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Se......