### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 1, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1595 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00354 -CV -P- S SO UT HT RUS T B AN K, an A labam a Banki ng C or

por at ion , Plaintiff-Appellee C ro ss- Appe llant,
ve rs us COLLINS HOLDING CORPORATION, f.k.a . Col li ns Mu si c Co ., Inc ., et al ., D ef en dants -Appe llants C ro ss- Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 1, 200 5)
Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.In Bo nn e r v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt t he de c isi on s o f t

he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d own p ri or

to October 1, 1981. 2 PE R CU RIA M: This case wa s presented to the dist rict court on cross-m otion s to enforce a
se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t r ea ch ed a t the c onc lus ionof

am ed ia tio n th at

too k pl ac e in A tlanta , G eo rg ia
. A ft er

c ondu ct ing a n e vid en tiary he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that the part ie s e nte re d in to a va lid se ttl em en t tha t i nc lud ed

para gr ap h 4 o f the Mem orandum

Of Understanding (“ MOU ”). T he que sti on o f w he the r the part ie s in te nde d to e nte r int o ava lid se ttl em en t ag reem en t i s a q ue st io n o f fac t s ub ject t o t he cle arl y

erro ne ou s s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. Se e Le e v. H

unt , 631 F. 2d 11 71, 1177 (5th Cir. 1980 ). T he question of w hether 1
ana tto rn ey

ha d th e re qui sit e au tho ri ty to bin d hi s c lie nt t o ase ttl em en t a gr ee m en t is als o a qu es ti on of f

actsu bjec t t o t he cle arl y

erro ne ou s s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. Gy mc o Constr . C

o. v. Arc hitectural

Glass and W

indo ws, I nc. , 884 F
. 2d 1 362, 13 64 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Thi s co ur t re vi ews a di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on s o f la w de no vo . Sund er lan d M ari ne M ut. I ns. Co
. v . W

ee ks M ari ne Co nst . Co
. , 338 F
. 3d 1 276, 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).3

Af ter re viewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly f ound that the part ie s e nte re d in to a va lid se ttl em en t
co nta ini ng p ar ag ra

ph 4 of the MO U
. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly f ound that de fe ndants ’ c ouns el ha d th e au tho ri ty to bin d de fe ndants to the se ttl em en t ag reem en t. So uth T ru st B an k ha s f

ile d ac ro ss- ap pe al c ont en din g th at it is en tit le d to
co ntr ac tua l a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and c oll ec tio n c ost s in curr ed a s ar es ult

of the de fe ndants ’ appe al
. W e do n ot r ea d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r re qui ri ng S outhT ru st

“ to convey

all of the bank’ s rights, title and interest in and to th e notes and loan doc um en ts e vid en ci ng a ll of de fe ndants ’ ind eb te dne ss t o th e bank” a s pr ec lud ing So uth T ru st f

ro m r eque sti ng c ontra ct

ua l a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and c oll ec tio n c ost s following resolutio n of this appeal. W e agre e w ith the defendants th at So ut hTru st ’s req ue st s fo r at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts is pre m atur e. Acco rd in gl y , we af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t. AFFIRMED.