Yes, the deal is valid. The lawyer had 'apparent authority,' which is the power it looks like he has based on his client's actions. The court said the plaintiffs made it look like their lawyer had the power to settle because 1) they let him be their only negotiator and make offers for them, and 2) they never told the other side he had limits on his power. Because the plaintiffs' actions and silence gave this impression, it was reasonable for the defendants to believe the lawyer when he said he had permission. So, the deal sticks.

Yes, the lawyer had the power to make the deal because it seemed like the family let him do that. They were with him when he was making the deal and didn't stop him or say he couldn't. Also, the judge was right to decide on the deal without a jury because it was about fairness, not facts that a jury usually looks at. When people agree to a deal, it's like a contract. And when someone wants the court to make the other side stick to a contract, that's asking the judge to use fairness powers, not something a jury decides.

Yes, we conclude that the lawyer had the power to make the deal because it seemed like the family allowed it. They were with him when he was making the deal and did not stop him or say he couldn't. We also conclude that the judge was right to decide on the deal without a jury because it was about fairness, not facts that a jury usually looks at. When people agree to a deal, it's like a contract. And when someone wants the court to make the other side stick to that contract, that is asking for fairness powers, not something a jury decides.

"A hearing pursuant to Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership [] is conducted to decide whether the terms of a settlement agreement are sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to be enforceable as a matter of law."

"[I] t is a general rule of agency law that the principal in an agency relationship is bound by, and liable for, the acts in which his agent engages with authority from the principal, and within the scope of the agent's employment."

The court thus concluded that the plaintiffs "had no right to a jury trial on issues raised in connection with enforcement of the settlement agreement. Even if certain factual matters were disputed, the motion to enforce was essentially equitable in nature and, consequently, the court was entitled to use its equitable powers to resolve the dispute without a jury."

—after previously representing parties at settlement conference, conferring publicly with clients after conference, and assuring opposing counsel he had authority, lawyer had apparent authority and could bind client to settlement

—upholding finding that plaintiffs' attorney had apparent authority to enter into global settlement of underlying litigation

—t] he plaintiffs also claim that they were denied their right to a jury trial on issues of fact under article first, § 19, of the Connecticut constitution

We are aware that we afford the trial court great deference in its factual findings and give every reasonable presumption in favor of its determination.

The rule of Audubon effects a delicate balance between concerns of judicial economy on the one hand and a party's constitutional rights to a jury and to a trial on the other hand.

—two conditions that must be met for apparent authority to exist:(1) "it must appear from the principal's conduct that the principal held the agent out as possessing sufficient authority to embrace the act in question, or knowingly permitted [the agent] to act as having such authority;" and (2) "the party dealing with the agent must have, acting in good faith, reasonably believed …

—a] t the time the [pretrial] mediation was concluded, a settlement had not been reached... although [the mediating judge] did remain active in further negotiations between the parties, "which ultimately resulted in a settlement agreement reached through out-of-court letters and phone calls, one week before trial [internal quotation marks omitted

Yes. An attorney has apparent authority to bind a client to a settlement when the client's conduct creates a reasonable belief in a third party that the attorney possesses such authority. The court applied a two-part test for apparent authority, finding both prongs were met. First, the plaintiffs' conduct held Coe out as having settlement authority; they designated him as their sole negotiator for over a month, authorized him to make a binding written offer on June 16, were seen conferring with him as negotiations continued, and never notified opposing counsel of any revocation of his authority. The court noted that a client's silence and failure to dissent can manifest affirmance. Second, the defendants' counsel reasonably believed Coe had the necessary authority, a belief based not only on the plaintiffs' course of dealing but also on Coe’s express and repeated assurances, which they could reasonably rely on given an attorney's ethical duties. The fact that the agreement was oral did not defeat its enforceability.

Yes, the plaintiffs' attorney had apparent authority to make settlement proposals and bind the plaintiffs to a global settlement agreement with the defendants because the plaintiffs held the attorney out as possessing such authority through a course of conduct beginning with the court-ordered mediation and continuing through the attorney's settlement negotiations and communications with the defendants' counsel in June. The plaintiffs were present with the attorney when the final offer was accepted and did not object or indicate the attorney lacked authority. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial on the enforcement of the settlement agreement as the motion to enforce was essentially equitable in nature. A settlement agreement is a contract, and a suit for specific performance of a contract invokes the court's equitable powers to be decided by the court, not a jury.

Yes, the plaintiffs' attorney had apparent authority to make settlement proposals and bind the plaintiffs to a global settlement agreement with the defendants because the plaintiffs held the attorney out as possessing such authority through a course of conduct beginning with the court-ordered mediation and continuing through the attorney's settlement negotiations and communications with the defendants' counsel in June. The plaintiffs were present with the attorney when the final offer was accepted and did not object or indicate the attorney lacked authority. We also hold that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial on the enforcement of the settlement agreement as the motion to enforce was essentially equitable in nature. A settlement agreement is a contract, and a suit for specific performance of a contract invokes the court's equitable powers to be decided by the court, not a jury.

Ackerman v. Sobol Family Partnership, LLP

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot