Carolyn Sue Dotson v. John E. Potter

Eighth Circuit

Carolyn Sue Dotson v. John E. Potter

180 F. App'x 620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2006

Docket05-1489

StatusUnpublished

This text of 180 F. App'x 620 (Carolyn Sue Dotson v. John E. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carolyn Sue Dotson v. John E. Potter, 180 F. App'x 620 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Carolyn Sue Dotson filed a sexual harassment suit against her employer, the United States Postal Service (Postal Service). The Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Dotson’s suit was precluded by a settlement agreement. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and this appeal followed. Following our careful review, see Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 728 n. 4, 729-80 (8th Cir.1990) (standard of review), we affirm.

Dotson argued below that the settlement agreement was not enforceable because after she signed it she realized the agreement did not comport with her understanding. We agree with the district court that this argument, based on alleged “mistake of fact,” does not provide grounds for avoiding the settlement agreement. See Austin v. Trotter’s Corp., 815 S.W.2d 951, 954 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (only circumstances such as trick or artifice, or where parties are dealing based on trust and confidence and not at arm’s length, allow party to escape obligation under knowingly signed contract); Sosa v. Velvet Dairy Stores, Inc., 407 S.W.2d 615, 621 (Mo.Ct.App.1966) (contract was not voided under mutual mistake of fact where mistake was based on unilateral misunderstanding).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Carolyn Sue Dotson filed a sexual harassment suit against her employer, the United States Postal Service (Postal Service). The Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Dotson’s suit was precluded by a settlement agreement. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and this appeal followed. Following our careful review, see Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 728 n. 4, 729-80 (8th Cir.1990) (standard of review), we affirm.

Dotson argued below that the settlement agreement was not enforceable because after she signed it she realized the agreement did not comport with her understanding. We agree with the district court that this argument, based on alleged “mistake of fact,” does not provide grounds for avoiding the settlement agreement. See Austin v. Trotter’s Corp., 815 S.W.2d 951, 954 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (only circumstances such as trick or artifice, or where parties are dealing based on trust and confidence and not at arm’s length, allow party to escape obligation under knowingly signed contract); Sosa v. Velvet Dairy Stores, Inc., 407 S.W.2d 615, 621 (Mo.Ct.App.1966) (contract was not voided under mutual mistake of fact where mistake was based on unilateral misunderstanding).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. App'x 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carolyn-sue-dotson-v-john-e-potter-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack