Thompson v. White
| Decision Date | 21 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-01625-COA, NO. 2020-CA-00565-COA,2019-CA-01625-COA |
| Citation | 328 So.3d 210 |
| Parties | Winston J. THOMPSON, III, Thompson & Associates, PLLC, and Law Office of Winston J. Thompson, III, Appellants v. Anita WHITE, Individually, as the Guardian of Rashaun D. Gardner, and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Zelda Gardner and Taurean J. Gardner, Individually, Appellees Winston J. Thompson, III, Thompson & Associates, PLLC, and Law Office of Winston J. Thompson, III, Appellants v. Anita White, Individually, as the Guardian of Rashaun D. Gardner, and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Zelda Gardner and Taurean J. Gardner, Individually, Appellees |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: GRAHAM PATRICK CARNER
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY MOREAU JOHNSTON, PRICE WILSON DONAHOO
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY MOREAU JOHNSTON (NO. 2020-CA-00565-COA)
EN BANC.
SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This matter comes before this Court as the consolidation of two cases on appeal. In Case No. 2019-CA-01625-COA, the Madison County Circuit Court denied as untimely Winston J. Thompson III's motion to set aside the default judgment awarded to Anita White. Then in Case No. 2020-CA-00565-COA, the circuit court denied Thompson's motion to enforce a settlement agreement against White, concluding there was no meeting of the minds between the parties. Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court's judgments.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Both cases arise from the claims of White, Taurean J. Gardner, and Rashaun D. Gardner (collectively "White") against Thompson, Thompson & Associates PLLC, and the Law Office of Winston J. Thompson III (collectively, "Thompson"). The following sequence of events pertains to both cases.
¶3. On April 14, 2008, White filed a complaint against Thompson for legal malpractice. Thompson was served on April 21, 2008, but failed to answer or defend against the claim. Almost three years later, on April 7, 2011, White filed an amended complaint against Thompson, asserting additional claims. Thompson was served on July 7, 2011, but again failed to answer, appear, or otherwise defend against the claims. White applied for the entry of a default judgment and moved for a default judgment against Thompson on November 3, 2011. The circuit court held a hearing on the motion on February 23, 2012. After Thompson failed to appear at the hearing, the circuit court granted a default judgment against Thompson on March 5, 2012. Over a year later, on September 30, 2013, White filed a motion to determine damages from the default judgment against Thompson, and a hearing was held on November 12, 2013. Again, Thompson failed to appear or defend at the hearing, and on November 25, 2013, the circuit court granted a final default judgment against Thompson for $1,540,242.12 in damages.
¶4. On October 7, 2016, five years after White filed her amended complaint and three years after the circuit court granted a final default judgment, Thompson filed a motion under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the default judgment. However, Thompson did not pursue the motion or take any further action for another two years. On September 17, 2018, White responded in opposition to Thompson's motion to set aside the default judgment. Thompson then filed the following motions: on September 25, 2018, a reply to White's response in opposition of the motion; on October 1, 2018, an amended reply to White's response and a second amended reply; and on October 2, 2018, a third amended reply to White's response. On March 27, 2019, White filed a memorandum in opposition of Thompson's amended motion to set aside the default judgment.
¶5. Thompson filed a notice of hearing on the motion to set aside the default judgment on May 20, 2019. After the parties presented their motions, the circuit court entered its September 26, 2019 order denying Thompson's motion to set aside the default judgment. Aggrieved, Thompson appeals the circuit court's order. Subsequently, Thompson filed a motion on November 20, 2019, to stay the execution of the judgment and White filed a response opposing the motion on January 10, 2020.
¶6. Thompson's attorney initiated settlement-agreement negotiations with White's attorney through email on February 12, 2020. These email negotiations and settlement discussions continued until April 2, 2020, and ended in disagreement as to whether there was an enforceable, agreed-upon settlement. On April 13, 2020, Thompson moved to enforce a settlement agreement against White and attached email communications between the parties’ counsel as evidence. That same day, White responded and opposed Thompson's motion to enforce a settlement agreement. On April 29, 2020, Thompson filed a reply to White's response in opposition to the motion to enforce a settlement agreement. After a hearing on the matter, the circuit court entered an order on May 22, 2020, denying Thompson's motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Aggrieved, Thompson appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶7. Because the default-judgment issue in Case No. 2019-CA-01625-COA would be moot if an enforceable settlement agreement is found to exist in Case No. 2020-CA-00565-COA, we first review Case No. 2020-CA-00565-COA.
¶8. The main issue on appeal is whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties on the essential terms of a settlement agreement. If there was a meeting of the minds, then the issue becomes whether there was an enforceable settlement agreement.
¶9. On appeal, this Court "reviews rulings on motions to enforce settlement agreements for abuse of discretion." Crowley v. Germany , 268 So. 3d 1277, 1278 (¶7) (Miss. 2018). "A settlement agreement is a contract," Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Byrd , 44 So. 3d 943, 948 (¶16) (Miss. 2010), and "[t]he existence of a contract and its terms are questions of fact to be resolved by the fact-finder, whether a jury, or a judge in a bench[ ]trial." Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunn , 117 So. 3d 670, 672 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). "A circuit court judge[’s] ... findings are safe on appeal where they are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence." Ammons v. Cordova Floors Inc. , 904 So. 2d 185, 189 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
¶10. The following additional facts are specific to the alleged settlement agreement. On February 12, 2020, Thompson's attorney, Graham Carner, initiated settlement negotiations with White's attorney, Greg Johnston, by emailing Johnston the following:
Consistent with our recent phone call, I am writing to make Mr. Thompson's best shot offer to fully and finally resolve this dispute and satisfy the Judgment at issue. As I have explained, Mr. Thompson's financial condition is poor.... Mr. Thompson can access $150,000 to fully and finally resolve this matter. If accepted, the payment of this money must result in the satisfaction of the judgment entered in the Madison County cause and an agreement that all claims (including for attorneys’ fees, interest, costs, etc.) of plaintiffs against Mr. Thompson and all of his related entities will be dismissed with prejudice/released.
Of note, when Thompson pursued a settlement agreement on February 12, 2020, he claimed that his "financial condition is poor." However, a mere eight days later, on February 20, 2020, as noted in the record, a news article publicly announced that Thompson had been co-counsel in a multi-million-dollar settlement case and would be entitled to a substantial portion of the $30 million dollars in legal fees that had accrued.
¶11. Exactly a month after Carner's initial email, on March 12, 2020, Johnston responded by email and presented Carner with a counter-offer on White's behalf. Johnston stated:
My clients are willing to settle this matter for $300,000. My clients would not require Mr. Thompson to provide any additional financial disclosures or asset verification and this settlement would provide a complete release and satisfaction of the outstanding judgment.... This would need to happen quickly and Mr. Thompson would agree to deposit the settlement funds in my trust account to be held in escrow while you and I put together the mutual, comprehensive release and the cancellation and satisfaction of judgment.
Six days later, on March 18, 2020, Johnston sent an email to Carner following up on the March 12, 2020 counter-offer. Later that same day, Carner responded that he and Thompson "have had trouble catching up with one another," but he "expect[ed] to be back in touch" with Johnston soon about the March 12, 2020 counter-offer.
¶12. The following three communications all occurred on March 24, 2020. First, Carner responded to the March 12, 2020 counter-offer on Thompson's behalf and stated the following: Johnston then replied, as follows:
[My clients] have not authorized me to respond to Mr. Thompson's $180,000, and have encouraged me to resume collection efforts.... I would encourage you to see if Mr. Thompson can do the $300,000 or something very close to it, or I'm afraid our settlement opportunity will elude us.
Almost immediately after receiving Johnston's email, Carner sent the following inquiry: Less than twenty minutes later, Johnston answered Carner's email explaining as follows:
Based on the feedback from my clients, the counter at this point would be $300,000. Also, my clients are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding Mr. Thompson's law firm. In the financial disclosures[,] Mr. Thompson's interest in the law firm was not listed as an asset and no value was assigned to it. I think my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wharton v. State ex rel. Pearl Police Dep't
...A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to set aside a default judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. White , 328 So. 3d 210, 218 (¶24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). In Wharton's motion, Wharton asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction due to insufficient servic......
-
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss. v. Coast Diagnostics, LLC
...825 So.2d 20, 23 (Miss. 2002)). And that presents a question of fact regarding the parties' intent. Id.; see also Thompson v. White, 328 So.3d 210, 214 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (noting that existence of settlement agreement is a question of fact) (citing Nat'l W. Life Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 117 So.......