Civil Practice : Settlement Agreement – Attorney’s Authority – Appellate Review

Where property owners in a mortgage foreclosure dispute appealed the trial court’s grant of the respondents’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement, arguing that they did not give their attorney authority to settle, the court’s finding that the attorney had settlement authority was supported by evidence in the record, and all settlement testimony and evidence was admitted at the hearing without a statute-of-frauds objection, so that claim is waived.

Judgment is affirmed.

Rule 4-1.2(a)

Opinion concurring in result, Rahmeyer, J.: “I return to Rule 4-1.2(a), which states the lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. It is only because of the deference to the trial court that an inference from the clients’ lawyer after the fact can be substantial evidence. Reluctantly, I must concur in the result.”

Rule 84.04(d)

Concurring opinion by Francis Jr., J.: “I would dismiss the entire appeal for lack of compliance with Rule 84.04(d) and failure of Appellants to comply with it in any of their points.”

Where
Judgment is affirmed.

Smith v. Great American Assurance Company (MLW No. 66479/Case No. SD32604 – 22 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Scott, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Greene County, Cordonnier, J. (Paul Paxton Hasty Jr., Overland Park, Kansas, for appellant) (James Scott Kreamer, Kansas City, Missouri, and Angela Marie Higgins, Kansas City, Missouri, and Rodney Earl Loomer and Ben K. Upp, Springfield, for respondents).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)