Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01489/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn Sue Dotson
Appellant
John E. Potter
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1489

___________

Carolyn Sue Dotson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, *

United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 1, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carolyn Sue Dotson filed a sexual harassment suit against her employer, the

United States Postal Service (Postal Service). The Postal Service filed a motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Dotson’s suit was

precluded by a settlement agreement. The district court granted the motion to

dismiss, and this appeal followed. Following our careful review, see Osborn v.

United States, 918 F.2d 724, 728 n.4, 729-30 (8th Cir. 1990) (standard of review), we

affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044172
-2-

Dotson argued below that the settlement agreement was not enforceable

because after she signed it she realized the agreement did not comport with her

understanding. We agree with the district court that this argument, based on alleged

“mistake of fact,” does not provide grounds for avoiding the settlement agreement.

See Austin v. Trotter’s Corp., 815 S.W.2d 951, 954 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (only

circumstances such as trick or artifice, or where parties are dealing based on trust and

confidence and not at arm’s length, allow party to escape obligation under knowingly

signed contract); Sosa v. Velvet Dairy Stores, Inc., 407 S.W.2d 615, 621 (Mo. Ct.

App. 1966) (contract was not voided under mutual mistake of fact where mistake was

based on unilateral misunderstanding). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044172