Lexplug logoLexplug

Tolbert v. Hyatt Management

Louisiana Court of Appeal
496 So. 2d 1054, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7746 (1986)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A compromise agreement to end a lawsuit that is recited in open court is judicially enforceable, provided its essential terms are fully disclosed, and a party's subsequent subjective misunderstanding of the net financial distribution does not invalidate the agreement.


Facts:

  • Deborah Williams Tolbert sustained injuries from a slip and fall on a staircase in the Louisiana Superdome.
  • Tolbert filed a lawsuit for damages against the Superdome.
  • The parties reached a settlement agreement, which was recited in open court.
  • The stated terms were that the defendant would pay Tolbert $4,000 for general damages, plus documented medical bills, and up to $200 in documented court costs.
  • In a direct colloquy with the trial judge, Tolbert confirmed she understood the settlement was final and complete, and agreed to its terms.
  • After the hearing, Tolbert refused to sign the written release or accept the settlement check.
  • Tolbert asserted that she had misunderstood the agreement, believing she would receive a net payment of $4,000 after all litigation expenses and medical bills were deducted.

Procedural Posture:

  • Deborah Williams Tolbert filed a petition for damages in a Louisiana trial court.
  • Following an in-court settlement agreement, Tolbert refused to execute the final documents.
  • The defendant filed a 'Rule To Compel Execution Of Settlement Documents' in the trial court.
  • The trial court judge granted the defendant's motion and rendered a judgment ordering Tolbert to execute the settlement documents.
  • Tolbert, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.

Locked

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 a party's subsequent misunderstanding about the net distribution of settlement proceeds invalidate an otherwise valid compromise agreement that was clearly recited and personally affirmed by that party in open court?


Opinions:

Majority - Gulotta, J.

No. A party's misunderstanding about the net proceeds does not invalidate a compromise agreement recited and affirmed in open court. Under LSA-C.C. Art. 3071, a compromise recited in open court is judicially enforceable as long as it makes a full disclosure of the essential terms. The record clearly shows the terms—$4,000 in general damages plus payment for specific, documented bills—were fully disclosed to Tolbert. The trial judge's direct questioning confirmed her understanding and assent, making her subsequent claim of misunderstanding insufficient to void the binding agreement she made.



Analysis:

This decision strongly reinforces the finality of settlement agreements made on the record in open court under Louisiana law. It establishes that objective assent, demonstrated through a clear recitation of terms and a party's affirmation before a judge, outweighs a later subjective claim of misunderstanding. The ruling provides certainty for litigants, ensuring that an in-court compromise cannot be easily undone by 'buyer's remorse' regarding the financial outcome after attorney's fees and costs are calculated. This case serves as a key precedent for motions to enforce such settlements.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Tolbert v. Hyatt Management (1986) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Tolbert v. Hyatt Management