BUETUNER, J:
{1 Plaintiffs/Appellees Earl Russell, Gary Watson, Gary Smith, Mack Word, Steve Henson, Ruben Garcia, Kenneth Turner, (Greg Theobald, Wayne McGee, and Bryan Burton (Deputies) filed suit in 1995 against Defendant/Appellant, the Board of County Commissioners of Carter County (County), seeking overtime pay. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County and Deputies appealed. See Russell et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 1997 OK 80, 952 P.2d 492. This court reversed the grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and also reversed and remanded the case for trial. Id.
12 The parties do not dispute that on the date set for trial following remand, the parties reached a settlement agreement. However, the parties soon disagreed over the terms of the settlement and Deputies filed their motion to enforce settlement agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court entered the order which is the subject of the instant appeal. The trial court determined that it retained jurisdiction over the controversy.
The questioned order stated that the parties had agreed to settle the case for $50,000 to be paid in a lump sum and that County did not have the option to pay the settlement in installments. The trial court therefore ordered County to pay the full $50,000 settlement amount before the end of its next payment cycle. County appeals the trial court's order. Because we find the trial court erred in ordering a lump sum payment, we reverse and remand.
18 A settlement agreement is a contract. Rader v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., 1997 OK 16, 934 P.2d 332, 334; Corbett v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 1982 OK 135, 654 P.2d 616, 617. Settlement agreements are generally favored and will be enforced absent fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake. Vela v. Hope Lumber & Supply Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 162, 966 P.2d 1196, 1198. Further, settlement agreements may be oral, as was the one in the instant case. 15A Am.Jur2d Compromise and Settlement, § 10.
14 The trial court held a hearing to determine the method of payment contemplated by the settlement agreement. The
court found that County agreed to pay the settlement in a lump sum. There is evidence to support this finding. However, the question remains as to what authority a court has to force a county to make an immediate payment for a breach of contract.
T5 County argues that the trial court's order enforcing the settlement agreement constitutes a judgment and that a county may not pay a judgment in a lump sum, but must pay it in thirds. County relies on 19 0.8.1991 § 6
and 62 0.S.1991 § 365.5
We further note the Oklahoma Constitution provides for the payment of judgments out of a county's sinking fund.
County cites Board of Education of City of Drunwight v. Board of Commissioners of Creek County, 171 Okla. 464, 48 P.2d 189 (1985). That case provides, in pertinent part:
One holding a money judgment against an individual has the right immédiately to have the same satisfied in full out of any property of the debtor ... One holding a judgment against a county of this state has
different rights; that is, the right not to an immediate payment in full, but the right to have tax levies made, one-third each year, and for payment when the fund has accumulated therefor (section 5918, 0.8.1981), unless there exists a sinking fund out of which the judgment can and should be paid.
Judgments against a county must be paid out of the county's sinking fund. Oklahoma statutes require the counties to levy taxes in order to create a sinking fund out of which to pay judgments, as well as bonded indebtedness and interest.
We note the language of Board of Education of City of Drumright, supra, indicates that a judgment against a county must be paid in thirds unless there are sufficient funds in the county's sinking fund to pay all of the judgment. This holding indicates that a judgment may be paid in a lump sum out of the sinking fund, if the fund contains sufficient funds, or in three annual installments from the sinking fund.
While Drumright and Goerke predate § 865.5, this view finds support in later cases as well. See Clay v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, 1997 OK 18, 935 P.2d 294 (a sinking fund obligation may be paid either out of surplus revenues in the sinking fund or from three annual sinking fund levies). County alleged at the hearing in the instant matter that the settlement agreement called for it to pay the $50,000 settlement either in a lump sum or in three annual installments.
T6 The issue here is whether the trial court had the authority to order County to pay the agreed settlement amount in a lump sum, after finding that County had agreed to pay the specified amount. We have recounted the law with respect to payment of judgments against counties because we do not believe a trial court may order a county to pay a contractual obligation in a manner inconsistent with the statutory method of paying judgments. Thus, we need not decide whether to agree with County's effort to transmogrify a settlement agreement into a judgment, because the result is the same.
T7 While the case is still pending, the trial court has the inherent authority to enforce terms of a settlement agreement. A motion to enforce a settlement agreement is treated as a motion for summary judgment. Gilmartin v. Abastillas, supra note 1. When the terms of the settlement agreement are disputed, the trial court should, as it did here, conduct an evidentiary hearing.
After determining that County promised to pay a lump sum, the trial court could do no more than if there had been a trial finding County breached the contract. The failure to pay money is a legal, not equitable action.
The detriment caused by the breach of an obligation to pay money only is deemed to be the amount due by the terms of the obligation, with interest thereon.
28 0.8.1991 § 22. Where there is an adequate remedy at law, equity does not grant specific performance. Fortner v. Wilson, 1950 OK 71, 202 Okla. 563, 216 P.2d 299.
18 Thus, specific performance, an equitable remedy is not available where the only detriment alleged is the failure to timely pay a monetary obligation.
19 This is not to say that Deputies are without a remedy. In accordance with City of Drumwright, a judgment against a county is to be paid by tax levies, one-third each year, unless there is a sinking fund out of which the judgment can be paid.
In Hyre v. Pratt,
1963 OK 91, 382 P.2d 18, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that judgment creditors could proceed against a city treasurer in a mandamus proceeding to prove that there were sufficient funds in the sinking fund, over and above statutory obligations, from which a judgment could be paid in a lump sum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BUETUNER, J:
{1 Plaintiffs/Appellees Earl Russell, Gary Watson, Gary Smith, Mack Word, Steve Henson, Ruben Garcia, Kenneth Turner, (Greg Theobald, Wayne McGee, and Bryan Burton (Deputies) filed suit in 1995 against Defendant/Appellant, the Board of County Commissioners of Carter County (County), seeking overtime pay. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County and Deputies appealed. See Russell et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 1997 OK 80, 952 P.2d 492. This court reversed the grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and also reversed and remanded the case for trial. Id.
12 The parties do not dispute that on the date set for trial following remand, the parties reached a settlement agreement. However, the parties soon disagreed over the terms of the settlement and Deputies filed their motion to enforce settlement agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court entered the order which is the subject of the instant appeal. The trial court determined that it retained jurisdiction over the controversy.
The questioned order stated that the parties had agreed to settle the case for $50,000 to be paid in a lump sum and that County did not have the option to pay the settlement in installments. The trial court therefore ordered County to pay the full $50,000 settlement amount before the end of its next payment cycle. County appeals the trial court's order. Because we find the trial court erred in ordering a lump sum payment, we reverse and remand.
18 A settlement agreement is a contract. Rader v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., 1997 OK 16, 934 P.2d 332, 334; Corbett v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 1982 OK 135, 654 P.2d 616, 617. Settlement agreements are generally favored and will be enforced absent fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake. Vela v. Hope Lumber & Supply Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 162, 966 P.2d 1196, 1198. Further, settlement agreements may be oral, as was the one in the instant case. 15A Am.Jur2d Compromise and Settlement, § 10.
14 The trial court held a hearing to determine the method of payment contemplated by the settlement agreement. The
court found that County agreed to pay the settlement in a lump sum. There is evidence to support this finding. However, the question remains as to what authority a court has to force a county to make an immediate payment for a breach of contract.
T5 County argues that the trial court's order enforcing the settlement agreement constitutes a judgment and that a county may not pay a judgment in a lump sum, but must pay it in thirds. County relies on 19 0.8.1991 § 6
and 62 0.S.1991 § 365.5
We further note the Oklahoma Constitution provides for the payment of judgments out of a county's sinking fund.
County cites Board of Education of City of Drunwight v. Board of Commissioners of Creek County, 171 Okla. 464, 48 P.2d 189 (1985). That case provides, in pertinent part:
One holding a money judgment against an individual has the right immédiately to have the same satisfied in full out of any property of the debtor ... One holding a judgment against a county of this state has
different rights; that is, the right not to an immediate payment in full, but the right to have tax levies made, one-third each year, and for payment when the fund has accumulated therefor (section 5918, 0.8.1981), unless there exists a sinking fund out of which the judgment can and should be paid.
Judgments against a county must be paid out of the county's sinking fund. Oklahoma statutes require the counties to levy taxes in order to create a sinking fund out of which to pay judgments, as well as bonded indebtedness and interest.
We note the language of Board of Education of City of Drumright, supra, indicates that a judgment against a county must be paid in thirds unless there are sufficient funds in the county's sinking fund to pay all of the judgment. This holding indicates that a judgment may be paid in a lump sum out of the sinking fund, if the fund contains sufficient funds, or in three annual installments from the sinking fund.
While Drumright and Goerke predate § 865.5, this view finds support in later cases as well. See Clay v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, 1997 OK 18, 935 P.2d 294 (a sinking fund obligation may be paid either out of surplus revenues in the sinking fund or from three annual sinking fund levies). County alleged at the hearing in the instant matter that the settlement agreement called for it to pay the $50,000 settlement either in a lump sum or in three annual installments.
T6 The issue here is whether the trial court had the authority to order County to pay the agreed settlement amount in a lump sum, after finding that County had agreed to pay the specified amount. We have recounted the law with respect to payment of judgments against counties because we do not believe a trial court may order a county to pay a contractual obligation in a manner inconsistent with the statutory method of paying judgments. Thus, we need not decide whether to agree with County's effort to transmogrify a settlement agreement into a judgment, because the result is the same.
T7 While the case is still pending, the trial court has the inherent authority to enforce terms of a settlement agreement. A motion to enforce a settlement agreement is treated as a motion for summary judgment. Gilmartin v. Abastillas, supra note 1. When the terms of the settlement agreement are disputed, the trial court should, as it did here, conduct an evidentiary hearing.
After determining that County promised to pay a lump sum, the trial court could do no more than if there had been a trial finding County breached the contract. The failure to pay money is a legal, not equitable action.
The detriment caused by the breach of an obligation to pay money only is deemed to be the amount due by the terms of the obligation, with interest thereon.
28 0.8.1991 § 22. Where there is an adequate remedy at law, equity does not grant specific performance. Fortner v. Wilson, 1950 OK 71, 202 Okla. 563, 216 P.2d 299.
18 Thus, specific performance, an equitable remedy is not available where the only detriment alleged is the failure to timely pay a monetary obligation.
19 This is not to say that Deputies are without a remedy. In accordance with City of Drumwright, a judgment against a county is to be paid by tax levies, one-third each year, unless there is a sinking fund out of which the judgment can be paid.
In Hyre v. Pratt,
1963 OK 91, 382 P.2d 18, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that judgment creditors could proceed against a city treasurer in a mandamus proceeding to prove that there were sufficient funds in the sinking fund, over and above statutory obligations, from which a judgment could be paid in a lump sum. The court reiterated its approval of the following rule from Conner v. Battles, 184 Okla. 351, 87 P.2d 121 (1989):
"A judgment against a governmental subdivision of this state, for which no tax levies have been made, should not be paid out the accumulated sinking fund under the provisions of section 5919, O.S.1981, 62 Okl.St.Ann. § 435, unless it definitely appears that the sinking fund used to pay the judgment will or may be replaced by levy and collection by the time it is needed to pay maturities of pre-existing obligations of the sinking fund."
The court then held:
It is our conclusion that under our interpretation of 62 O.S.1961 § 485, plaintiffs had a complete remedy and have shown a right to avail themselves of such remedy and compel defendant to pay the judgment from the sinking fund.
We see no reason that this holding would not be applicable to County.
Conclusion
T10 We hold that the trial court was without authority to order County to pay the settlement in a lump sum without any evidence with respect to the status of County's sinking fund in a proceeding to enforce a settlement agreement. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND this action to the trial court with directions to vacate the appealed order as well as the award of attorney fees. Any additional proceedings shall be undertaken in accordance with the views expressed herein.
JONES, P.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.