Tiernan v. Devoe

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
923 F.2d 1024, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 660, 1991 WL 2926 (1991)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Pennsylvania law, an attorney generally requires express authority to settle a client's cause of action, and a district court cannot summarily enforce a settlement agreement without an evidentiary hearing when there are disputed material facts regarding the attorney's authority to bind the client.

Facts:

Plaintiffs purchased limited partnership interests in a building renovation project known as the 'Malt House' in Philadelphia in 1985.
By 1987, the renovation venture failed, causing the partnership to default on its trade and mortgage obligations.
A majority of the limited partners formed a committee to address the project's economic viability and seek legal redress, retaining attorney Michael Bloom to represent their interests.
Bloom engaged in negotiations with four distinct groups of defendants involved in the project, including general partners, accountants, and attorneys.
In late 1988, Bloom exchanged correspondence with the defendants purporting to accept settlement offers and confirming terms of agreement.
Plaintiffs assert that Bloom was only authorized to negotiate offers, not to finalize agreements without individual partner approval, and they subsequently rejected the proposed settlements.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging federal securities fraud and RICO claims.
Defendants moved to enforce settlement agreements they believed were finalized by plaintiffs' previous counsel.
The District Court granted the motion and ordered summary enforcement of the settlements for three of the four defendant groups without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Plaintiffs appealed the enforcement order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the summary enforcement of a settlement agreement appropriate when the plaintiffs raise genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether their attorney possessed express, implied, or apparent authority to settle their claims?

Opinions:

Majority - Scirica

No, summary enforcement is inappropriate because the validity of the settlement depends on disputed factual issues regarding the attorney's authority. The Court reasoned that a motion to enforce a settlement is treated similarly to a motion for summary judgment; enforcement is only proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact. Under the applicable Pennsylvania law, an attorney generally requires express authority to settle a client's claim. While implied or apparent authority might suffice in some instances, the plaintiffs presented evidence that they never granted Bloom express authority, that the committee lacked the power to settle for all partners, and that they did not ratify the unauthorized acts. Because the plaintiffs' assertions, if true, would invalidate the settlements, the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing rather than summarily enforcing the agreements based solely on correspondence.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards required when the existence or validity of a settlement agreement is contested. By equating a motion to enforce settlement with a motion for summary judgment, the Third Circuit ensures that clients are not bound to unauthorized agreements without an opportunity to present evidence. The ruling also clarifies choice-of-law principles, establishing that state law governs the scope of an attorney's authority to settle even in cases involving federal claims, as this issue concerns the attorney-client relationship rather than federal substantive rights.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tiernan v. Devoe (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"