George Norwood v. Michael R. Garber

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 3, 2010
• Docket: CA-0009-0956
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-956

GEORGE NORWOOD

VERSUS

MICHAEL R. GARBER

************

APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2004-6977 HONORABLE WILFORD D. CARTER, DISTRICT JUDGE

JAMES T. GENOVESE JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

George Norwood In Proper Person 236 Norwood Lane Ragley, Louisiana 70657 (337) 438-2742 PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Emmett C. Sole Dallas K. Kingham Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, L.L.P. Post Office Box 2900 Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602 (337) 436-9491 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Michael R. Garber GENOVESE, Judge.

Plaintiff/Appellant, George Norwood, appeals the judgment of the trial court

granting the Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement filed by Defendant/Appellee,

Michael R. Garber. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

FACTS

This matter involves a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Mr. Norwood against

Mr. Garber on the basis that Mr. Garber’s representation of Mr. Norwood in a real

estate transaction was allegedly negligent. The parties agreed to mediation. Pursuant

to said mediation, the parties entered into a settlement and signed a settlement

agreement. However, due to Mr. Norwood’s refusal to accept the settlement

proceeds, Mr. Garber filed a Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement. The trial court

granted Mr. Garber’s motion and ordered Mr. Norwood to comply with the terms of

the settlement agreement. Mr. Norwood appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Norwood asserts that the trial court erred

by dismissing his “claim inspite [sic] of clear and conviencing [sic] evidence showing

that [he] was tricked into signing a settlement agreement[.]”

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution provisions of the Louisiana

Mediation Act, La.R.S. 9:4111(A) provides:

If, as a result of a mediation, the parties agree to settle and execute a written agreement disposing of the dispute, the agreement is enforceable as any other transaction or compromise and is governed by the provisions of Title XVII of Book III of the Civil Code, to the extent not in conflict with the provisions of this Chapter.

1 Louisiana Civil Code Article 3071 provides: “A compromise is a contract

whereby the parties, through concessions made by one or more of them, settle a

dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship.”

In his brief, Mr. Norwood alleges:

While engaging in a mediation settlement, I was quoted a $145,000 (ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY[-] FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) amount for settlement; however, I later learned that the amount quoted and the amount that I would actually receive had changed to an amount of $45,000 (FORTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND) for which I did not agree to; thus, there was no meeting of the mind[s] in order to conclude a settlement agreement.

Mr. Norwood further asserts that “the entire mediation process was tainted and tilted

unfairly in Mr. Garber’s favor” due to a past professional partnership between the

mediator/attorney, Bernard McLaughlin, and Mr. Garber’s counsel of record, Emmett

Sole.

Mr. Garber counters by arguing that there was no evidence introduced at the

hearing of this matter which substantiates Mr. Norwood’s “allegation that his

signature on the mediation settlement agreement was obtained by fraudulent means.”

Thus, Mr. Garber contends there are no grounds upon which this court can reverse the

trial court’s judgment.

At the hearing on Mr. Garber’s Motion to Enforce Mediation Settlement, the

trial court inquired, “[Y]ou’ve already admitted that you agreed to mediate. After this

was all over, after visiting with the mediator and what have you, you signed a

document memorializing your agreement to settle the case. Why did you change your

mind?” Mr. Norwood replied, “Because the money is not right on the document.

They changed the money.”

In LeBlanc v. State Farm Insurance Co., 03-1522 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/26/04), 878

2 So.2d 715, this court affirmed the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to

compel the enforcement of a settlement. In LeBlanc, this court held that without any

evidence to support plaintiff’s allegation that she signed the agreement under duress,

“[b]y the clear language of [La.Civ.Code art. 3071], [the] Mediation Settlement

Agreement signed by the parties . . . constitute[d] a legal and binding compromise.”

Id. at 720.

In the instant matter, there was no evidence presented by Mr. Norwood to

support his contention that he was tricked into signing the settlement agreement at

issue herein. For the reasons stated above, we find no legal basis for reversing the

trial court’s judgment in this matter.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs

of these proceedings are assessed against Plaintiff/Appellant, George Norwood.