This case from the Third District Court of Appeal is a good illustration of a peril for mediation in not having releases drafted at the mediation conference [or at least the mediator requesting that counsel bring proposed releases to mediation for discussion].The parties agreed to exchange general releases and other related documents as per the terms of the settlement agreement. Guess what?!? As Gomer Pyle used to say “Surprise; surprise; surprise!” – the parties were unable to agree on the language of the releases required under the settlement agreement.
Appellee filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, alleging that pursuant to its clear and unambiguous terms the other party was required to execute a general release containing certain language and the other party argued that the plain and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement did not require such language.
Appellant appealed the trial court’s order enforcing the agreement alleging that since the language in the settlement agreement is susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning, it is ambiguous, and consequently, the trial court erred in resolving Appellee’s motion as a matter of law without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the intention of the parties. The appellate court agreed, reversed and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the ambiguity based on all of the relevant evidence bearing on the issue.
Although it’s not clear from the opinion that the settlement in this case occurred in mediation, it’s important to remember that, pursuant to Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Rule 10.420(c), Conduct of Mediation, Closure,
The mediator shall cause the terms of any agreement reached to be memorialized appropriately and discuss with the parties and counsel the process for formalization and implementation of the agreement.
A good mediator question to ask in this scenario would be, “What if the general releases are not exchanged?” Hmmm!?!
To email me, click Perry S. Itkin.
