Purcell International Textile Group, Inc. v. Algemene AFW N.V.
2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1698, 185 N.C. App. 135, 647 S.E.2d 667 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A client is bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their attorney, even if the attorney exceeded their actual authority and committed fraud, so long as the attorney acted with apparent authority in the eyes of the opposing party. The client's remedy for such misconduct is a malpractice action against their own attorney, not relief from the judgment.
Facts:
- Purcell International Textile Group (plaintiff) was engaged in a legal dispute with several defendant companies.
- The defendants hired attorney W. Rickert Hinnant to represent them in the litigation and settlement negotiations.
- As the trial date approached, Hinnant negotiated a settlement with Purcell for $850,000.00 via telephone, an amount that exceeded the authority his clients had given him.
- Hinnant falsely represented to Purcell that he had obtained his clients' approval for the settlement.
- Hinnant received the written settlement agreement from Purcell, forged the signatures of his clients' representatives, and returned the document without his clients' knowledge.
- While Hinnant was trying to convince his clients to accept the terms after the fact, the defendants failed to make the first payment because they were unaware a final agreement had been executed.
- The defendants did not know about the fraudulent settlement agreement Hinnant had negotiated until after a court judgment was entered against them.
Procedural Posture:
- Purcell International Textile Group filed suit against multiple defendants in Catawba County Superior Court (the trial court).
- On the scheduled trial date, the parties announced an oral settlement agreement in open court.
- After the defendants failed to make the first payment, Purcell filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
- The trial court granted Purcell's motion for a pre-judgment attachment of the defendants' assets.
- The trial court entered a judgment against the defendants for $977,500.00, which included the settlement amount plus attorneys' fees for the breach.
- The defendants retained new counsel and filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for relief.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's fraudulent settlement agreement, entered into with apparent authority but exceeding the client's actual authority, legally bind the client when the opposing party was unaware of the attorney's misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Elmore, Judge
Yes, an attorney's fraudulent settlement agreement entered into with apparent authority legally binds the client. The attorney-client relationship is governed by agency principles, and a client is bound by the acts of their agent-attorney when the attorney acts within the scope of their apparent authority. Here, Hinnant was the defendants' agent for handling the case and negotiating a settlement. His pattern of making progressively larger settlement offers gave Purcell reason to believe he had the authority to make the final $850,000 offer. Under the principle that where one of two innocent parties must suffer from a third party's fraud, the loss falls on the one who reposed confidence in the fraudulent party, the defendants who hired Hinnant must bear the loss. Furthermore, relief from a judgment due to fraud is only available for fraud committed by the adverse party, not one's own attorney. The defendants' proper remedy is a malpractice claim against Hinnant, not voiding the settlement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the finality of settlements by reinforcing the doctrine of apparent authority in the attorney-client relationship. It establishes that a client assumes the risk of their chosen attorney's misconduct when dealing with an innocent third party, protecting the opposing party's ability to rely on an attorney's representations. The ruling clearly channels aggrieved clients toward malpractice suits against their derelict attorneys rather than allowing them to unwind consummated legal agreements. This precedent thereby discourages clients from using their own attorney's alleged misconduct as a tactic to escape unfavorable settlements and promotes stability in the litigation process.
