Title: Connor v. Hammer

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

201 Kan. 22 (1968)
439 P.2d 116
JACKIE R. CONNOR and DONALD W. CONNOR, Heirs at Law of Edoline Fay Connor, Deceased, Appellants,
v.
JAY C. HAMMER, Appellee.
No. 44,908

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 6, 1968.
Lelyn J. Braun, of Garden City, argued the cause, and Dale H. Corley, of Garden City, was with him on the briefs for the appellants.
J. Eugene Balloun, of Great Bend, argued the cause, and H. Lee Turner, of Great Bend, and Clarence N. Holeman, of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KAUL, J.:
This is an action by appellants, heirs at law of Edoline Fay Connor, deceased, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of the deceased.
Mrs. Connor's death resulted from injuries received in an intersection collision between the automobile in which she was a passenger and a vehicle owned by appellee. The action was filed in April, 1965, issues were joined, and the matter came before the court for a pretrial conference on October 3, 1966.
At the pretrial conference, appellee orally moved the court to declare and enforce a settlement agreement which appellee claimed was completed on September 17, 1964. Appellee's motion was taken under advisement by the court and the parties submitted their correspondence files to the court and letters in which they stated their respective positions on the motion.
The trial court found a settlement had been completed and ordered the case dismissed upon payment of $1,500.00 by defendant to plaintiffs' attorney. This appeal followed.
The finding of the trial court was based primarily on a letter, *23 dated September 17, 1964, written by appellants' attorney, addressed to Kelly Barnes, a representative of appellee. The letter is the subject of the points raised on appeal and reads as follows:
"Dear Mr. Barnes:
The trial court stated reasons for its findings in pertinent part as follows:
The appellants' statement of points on appeal are as follows:
*24 The language of the first paragraph of the letter in question unequivocally shows an offer extended by appellee's representative and the acceptance thereof by appellants' attorney. The trial court found that Mr. Braun stated he had authority from his clients to accept the offer and he makes no claim to the contrary.
Letters between counsel leading up to the offer of appellee's representative and the acceptance by appellants on September 17, 1964, are set out in the record. The trial court also had before it correspondence between Mr. Braun and Mr. C.W. Clift, an attorney of Oklahoma City, who appears to be a co-counsel for appellants. Mr. Clift acquiesced in the settlement offer in his letter of August 10, 1964, to Mr. Braun in which Clift wrote as follows:
Appellants argue that even though the first paragraph of the letter in question amounted to an acceptance, the second paragraph placed further conditions on the settlement. In his letter to the trial court, following the pretrial conference, appellants' counsel writes:
With respect to the second paragraph of the letter, the trial court found it did not place any conditions on the settlement, but only pertained to the mechanics of effecting the settlement agreed upon. We must agree with the trial court's interpretation.
This record clearly indicates the appellants accepted the offer of settlement, then changed their minds, and now wish to repudiate it. No claim of fraud or bad faith is made.
The law favors the compromise and settlement of disputes and when parties, in the absence of any element of fraud or bad faith, enter into an agreement settling and adjusting a dispute, neither party is permitted to repudiate it. (Sutherland v. Sutherland, 187 Kan. 599, 358 P.2d 776. See, also, Nauman v. Kenosha Auto Transport Co., 186 Kan. 305, 349 P.2d 931, and cases cited therein.)
*25 Appellants devote a part of their brief to the argument that appellee did not plead settlement in his answer and, therefore, the issue was not before the trial court at pretrial conference. This question was not raised before the trial court nor is it made a point on appeal. Consequently, it is not here for review.
The judgment is affirmed.