Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06305/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06305-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Al Salyer Olds-Cadillac-Nissan Co., Inc.
Appellant
Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl LED 

U!iited States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Ci~cuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

AL SALYER OLDS-CADILLAC-NISSAN 

CO., INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN U.S.A., 

a California Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6305 

) (D.C. No.CIV-87- 2400-A) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6305 Document: 010110098421 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff appeals from the district court's ruling enforcing 

a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. We affirm. 

Plaintiff, a Nissan dealer, sold and serviced Nissan vehicles 

and parts, including performing warranty work on Nissan vehicles 

for which it was reimbursed by defendant. Each month defendant 

sent plaintiff a nonvehicle statement reflecting debits and 

credits between the parties. From August 31, 1986, to January, 

1987, defendant audited plaintiff's warranty claims. Based on the 

audit, defendant concluded plaintiff owed $67,917 in 

unsubstantiated warranty claims and included that amount in the 

March, 1987, nonvehicle statement. Plaintiff failed to pay this 

amount and amounts for other charges. 

Subsequently, plaintiff commenced 

among other things, that the audit was 

counterclaimed for amounts allegedly 

this action, 

inaccurate. 

due on the 

alleging, 

Defendant 

nonvehicle 

statement. Despite the counterclaim, on February 2, 1989, 

defendant sent plaintiff a check for $12,999.43, because, at that 

time, plaintiff's nonvehicle statement reflected that defendant 

owed plaintiff that amount. 

On November 2, 1988, Mr. Pendarvis, plaintiff's attorney, 

advised defendant's attorney, Ms. Paskin, that plaintiff would 

settle for $50,000. On several occasions, defendant attempted to 

settle the action for less than $50,000, gradually increasing its 

offer, in exchange for general releases of all claims of plaintiff 

and dismissal of this lawsuit. Plaintiff consistently refused to 

settle for less than $50,000. During a telephone conversation 

with Ms. Paskin on January 24, 1989, while plaintiff's owners were 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6305 Document: 010110098421 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 2 
present, Mr. Pendarvis again expressed plaintiff's refusal to 

settle for less than $50,000, when rejecting defendant's latest 

offer to settle for $35,000. That same day, plaintiff discharged 

Mr. Pendarvis. The next day, defendant accepted the offer to 

settle for $50,000 in exchange for general releases and dismissal 

of this lawsuit. Defendant drafted the settlement documents. 

Plaintiff's owners refused to sign the settlement agreement. 

Defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. 

In response, plaintiff objected to the release as too broad. 

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted 

defendant's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, modifying 

the general release to exclude insurance claims and claims against 

Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation. 

Plaintiff first argues the district court erred in enforcing 

the settlement agreement because the general release was too 

broad, containing items not discussed during settlement 

negotiations. It maintains that the provisions for assignment of 

claims to defendant and indemnification by plaintiff of released 

claims brought against defendant and the failure of defendant to 

account for the nonvehicle statement indicate a mutual mistake as 

to the items covered in the settlement. 

It is settled that courts have the power to enforce 

settlement agreements. See, e.g., Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 

531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862 (1976). 

If, however, a fact dispute exists, the district court must hold 

an evidentiary hearing to determine the enforceability of the 

settlement agreement. United States ex rel. Harter Concrete 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6305 Document: 010110098421 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 3 
Prods., Inc. v. Buckner & Moore, Inc., 505 F. Supp. 409, 410 (W.D. 

Okla. 1979). 

Under Oklahoma law, a mutual mistake of fact may justify 

setting aside a release. Fisher v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass 

Corp., 868 F.2d 1175, 1176 (10th Cir. 1989); Holmes v. 

Missouri-Kan.-Tex. R.R. Co., 574 P.2d 297, 298 (Okla. 1978). The 

mutual mistake must be of a past or present material fact not a 

mistake as to a belief or opinion of an uncertain event. Birch v. 

Keen, 449 P.2d 700, 702 (Okla. 1969)(citing Davis v. Higgins, 217 

P. 193 (Okla. 1923)). For the release to be set aside, there must 

be clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake. Id. at 703. 

Examination of the record shows no mutual mistake of fact. 

Defendant consistently requested a general release as to all 

possible claims. Moreover, plaintiff admits that defendant sought 

a general release in all of its settlement offers. Thus, the 

district court's enforcement of the settlement agreement was not 

clearly erroneous. See Devine v. Ladd Petroleum Corp., 805 F.2d 

348, 350 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Second, plaintiff argues the district court erred in 

enforcing the settlement agreement because Mr. Pendarvis exceeded 

his authority in accepting the settlement offer, after his 

discharge, and the agreement was not conveyed to plaintiff. 

Defendant correctly argues that plaintiff raises this issue for 

the first time on appeal. This court may refuse to review an 

issue on appeal that was not raised before the district court, 

unless there was manifest error. The Post Office v. Portee, Inc., 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6305 Document: 010110098421 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 4 
.. . 

913 F.2d 802, 806 (10th Cir. 1990). Because there was no manifest 

error here, we will not address this issue. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6305 Document: 010110098421 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 5