Fedders Corporation v. David Distributing Company, Eugene F. Alexander, and Rita M. Alexander

Eighth Circuit

Fedders Corporation v. David Distributing Company, Eugene F. Alexander, and Rita M. Alexander

710 F.2d 452, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 1983

Docket83-1159

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 710 F.2d 452 (Fedders Corporation v. David Distributing Company, Eugene F. Alexander, and Rita M. Alexander) 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

Fedders Corporation v. David Distributing Company, Eugene F. Alexander, and Rita M. Alexander, 710 F.2d 452, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26400 (8th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a client is bound by a settlement agreement made by his lawyer. Fedders Corporation filed a diversity suit in the Eastern District of Missouri to collect debts allegedly owed to it by David Distributing Company and guaranteed by Eugene and Rita Alexander, David’s owners. The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract. The parties had several settlement discussions, and finally Fedders’s attorney and the defendants’ attorney agreed that the defendants would pay Fedders $105,000. The defendants’ attorney drafted settlement documents and forwarded them to Fedders’s attorney. When he objected that the Alexanders were not named as parties in the documents, the defendants’ attorney told him to add them, that it would be “no problem.” When the Alexanders refused to sign the documents, Fedders moved to enforce the settlement agreement. The court, 1 after a hearing, entered judgment in favor of Fedders.

The defendants appeal, arguing here, as they did below, that their attorney had no authority to agree to various terms in the settlement agreement, especially the waiver of counterclaims. After studying the record and the briefs, we conclude that the lower court, which was charged with judging the credibility of the witnesses, was entitled to find that the defendants did not carry their burden of proving that their attorney lacked actual authority to make the settlement agreement. See Leffler v. Bi-State Development Agency, 612 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo.App.1981). Accordingly, pursuant to 8th Cir.R. 14, we affirm on the basis of the lower court’s opinion.

1

. The Hon. William S. Bahn, United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of Missouri. This appeal was taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3) (Supp. V 1981).

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a client is bound by a settlement agreement made by his lawyer. Fedders Corporation filed a diversity suit in the Eastern District of Missouri to collect debts allegedly owed to it by David Distributing Company and guaranteed by Eugene and Rita Alexander, David’s owners. The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract. The parties had several settlement discussions, and finally Fedders’s attorney and the defendants’ attorney agreed that the defendants would pay Fedders $105,000. The defendants’ attorney drafted settlement documents and forwarded them to Fedders’s attorney. When he objected that the Alexanders were not named as parties in the documents, the defendants’ attorney told him to add them, that it would be “no problem.” When the Alexanders refused to sign the documents, Fedders moved to enforce the settlement agreement. The court, 1 after a hearing, entered judgment in favor of Fedders.

The defendants appeal, arguing here, as they did below, that their attorney had no authority to agree to various terms in the settlement agreement, especially the waiver of counterclaims. After studying the record and the briefs, we conclude that the lower court, which was charged with judging the credibility of the witnesses, was entitled to find that the defendants did not carry their burden of proving that their attorney lacked actual authority to make the settlement agreement. See Leffler v. Bi-State Development Agency, 612 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo.App.1981). Accordingly, pursuant to 8th Cir.R. 14, we affirm on the basis of the lower court’s opinion.

1

. The Hon. William S. Bahn, United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of Missouri. This appeal was taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3) (Supp. V 1981).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 F.2d 452, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedders-corporation-v-david-distributing-company-eugene-f-alexander-and-ca8-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack