Rogalla v. Rubbelke, 38381

• Decision Date: 22 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 38381,38381
• Citation: 112 N.W.2d 581,261 Minn. 381
• Parties: Mabel ROGALLA, Appellant, v. Derlene RUBBELKE et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 581

112 N.W.2d 581

261 Minn. 381

Mabel ROGALLA, Appellant, v. Derlene RUBBELKE et al., Respondents.

No. 38381.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 22, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court

A settlement of a lawsuit is binding on the parties when announced in open court and informally approved by the judge, though plaintiff has not accepted tender of payment by defendant. Held, the trial court acted properly here in dismissing plaintiff's action, with prejudice, upon motion by the defendants.

Stacker & Stacker, Thomas J. Burke, Silver Goff, Ryan, Cochrane & Aaron, and Allen H. Aaron, St. Paul, for appellant.

Thomas J. Spence, Michael J. Baglio, Benjamin M. Kail, Spence, Baglio & Kail, Murnane, Murnane, Battis & DeLambert, Tyrrell, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien and Raymond W. Fitch, St. Paul, for respondents.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court

Plaintiff in her complaint alleged that there was an automobile accident October 31, 1956, on Maryland Avenue in St. Paul, in which her car collided with those operated by each of the three defendants. She alleged negligence on the part of each defendant and claimed damages for injury to her person and her automobile and for loss of profits from her business, in the total sum of$20,000. Separate answers, each denying liability, were served on behalf of the defendants.

When the case came on for trial January 6, 1959, counsel for one of the defendants made the following statement in open court:

'Judge, may the record show that the parties, through their respective attorneys and in the presence of the plaintiff, Mabel Rogalla, stipulate that this action may be dismissed with prejudice and without further costs to any of the parties upon presentation to plaintiff's attorney of drafts totaling $4,350.00, accompanied by the usual releases and closing papers, and that the plaintiff agrees to execute those releases. * * *

'And may the record also show that it is stipulated that the plaintiff either personally or through her attorney, depending upon his preference, will execute the usual stipulations of dismissal to accompany the return of the releases.'

After some further explanations, including discussion of matters pertaining to plaintiff's insurance coverage, the trial court questioned the plaintiff as follows:

'The Court: The only question the Court wants to ask is, do you authorize your lawyer to enter into this settlement, and you are here present and agree to it?

'Mrs. Rogalla: Yes.

'The Court: I think it is a smart thing to do.

'Mrs. Rogalla: Thank you.'

The case was thereupon stricken from the calendar, but the court did not enter a formal dismissal. On that same day the defendants tendered drafts for $4,350, which the record shows are still in the possession of the attorneys who represented plaintiff at the time the case came on for trial. Plaintiff did not cash them nor did she execute the release forms.

On November 14, 1960, the defendants moved the court to dismiss plaintiff's action. The grounds asserted in support of the motion included the settlement set forth above. After a hearing the court ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. Judgment pursuant to the order was entered on January 16, 1961, and plaintiff appealed therefrom.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the proceedings of January 6, 1959, show an accord between the parties but that there has never been a satisfaction. She cites various cases to the effect that an accord is no defense unless fully executed.

Defendants, on the other hand, claim that this was a compromise and settlement and is binding though unexecuted on the part of plaintiff. They also...