Legal Memorandum: Breach of a Settlement Agreement

Issue: Whether a trial court abused its discretion in finding defendants breached the settlement agreement.

Area of Law: Litigation & Procedure
Keywords: Settlement agreement; Breach; Abuse of discretion
Jurisdiction: Federal
Cited Cases: 514 A.2d 552
Cited Statutes: None
Date: 07/01/2007

To the extent a trial court may implicitly find that a Plaintiff met her obligations under a Settlement Agreement, it was well within its discretion to do so.  See MCS Mktg., Inc. v. Univ. of Akron, 2004 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 583, *, 2004 Ohio 5453 (Ohio Ct. Cl. Sept. 30, 2004) (finding that the marketing firm “put forth reasonable and good faith efforts to expand UA’s program as required by the contract”); Barber v. Jacobs, 753 A.2d 430, 434 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000) (holding that given clear evidence in the record that the bank refused to grant the plaintiff a mortgage; that it was reasonable to assume other banks would also be reluctant to grant a mortgage; and that “the law does not require parties to perform futile acts” the trial court did not err in “conclud[ing] that the plaintiff used reasonable efforts to secure a suitable mortgage and did not breach the contract”); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Perelle, 514 A.2d 552, 563 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986) (concluding the plaintiff satisfied its obligation to use reasonable efforts to provide information by mailing notices to the defendant).

            See Re/Max Int’l, 271 F.3d at 647 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding the district court, which had jurisdiction over the settlement agreement after dismissal, correctly found that the defendant breached the settlement agreement). 


Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)