settlement agreement enforceable because settlement agreement had been “finalized” because no
other action was required for the settlement agreement to be enforceable); see also Thornberry v.

Board of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 8 Ill. hi 34 351, 354 (1972) (Thornberry) (settlement

it was concluded by disposition of the cause
gness to execute releases.”
arties, through their attorneys, conducted

Gf a-settlement agreement and Plaintiff's

willingness to execute a release — no other a were Tequired for the settlement agreement to
be enforceable. Accordingly, the settlement agreement is final for purposes of enforcement. See
Scheffield, 42 Ill. App. 3d at 841; Thornberry, 8 Ill. App. 3d at 354.

Plaintiff also argues that the settlement agreement should not be enforced because a
mistake of fact was made by her attorney and/or Economy. However, any such mistake would be
a unilateral mistake; and a unilateral mistake does not render a settlement agreement
unenforceable. See Kim v. Alvey, Inc., 322 Ill. App. 3d 657, 669 (2001); Cole Taylor Bank v.
Cole Taylor Bank, 224 Ill. App. 3d 696, 708 (1992).

For the reasons stated above, Bosques’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Settlement is

granted. Plaintiff's suit is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to the oral settlement agreement.

Dated: /~ (S-o# WH, on ae

Sy arn District Judge



acceptance must be so definite with respect to its material terms that the promises and
performances to be rendered by each party are reasonably certain. See Pritchett v. Asbestos
Claims Mgmt. Corp., 332 Ill. App. 3d 890, 896 (2002). A meeting of the minds between the
parties is present where there has been assent to the same things in the same sense on all of the
essential terms and conditions. See LaSalle National Bank v. International Ltd., 129 Ill. App. 24
381, 394 (1970).

Here, the undisputed facts show that all of the elements for a valid oral contract exist.
Plaintiff was to receive a single sum of money from Heartland in exchange for a release of all
claims as to Bosques and Medina, The issue that Plaintiff claims defeats this settlement
agreement arose after the oral settlement had already been reached, The issue, the general release
effected between Plaintiff and Economy, Plaintiff's insurer, and the validity of Plaintiffs
assignment of right to Economy do not effect the validity of the oral settlement agreement in
effect between Heartland and the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff cites to Vece v. DeBiase, 46 Ill. App. 2d 248 (1972), as support for her argument
that the settlement agreement was not finalized. The settlement agreement in Vece involved a
material mistake of fact not known when the negotiations took place and was dependent on the
approval of the probate court. The approval of the probate court had not been secured.
Accordingly, all conditions precedent to the finality of the settlement agreement had not been
secured. See Vece, 46 Ill. App. 2d at 252. However, if all of the conditions to a settlement
agreement have been met and no further action is required to enforce such agreement, the
settlement agreement is final for enforcement purposes. See Sheffield Poly-Glaz, Inc. v.

Humboldt Glass Co., 42 Ill. App. 3d 865, 841 (1976) (Sheffield) (distinguishing Vece, finding



Minote Onder Fos (06/97)

V4, a) — United States District Court, Northern District of Minois
Ni of Assigned Jud; ing Jus
vor Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah “than Auigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 6371 DATE 1/15/2004
CASE Carmella Zagone vs. Aaron Bosques, et. al.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a] Brief in support of motion due

(3) im) Answer brief to motiondue___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__—_att

(()) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_____setfor__—at__—.

(7?) QO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) Qa {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to att

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion and order,

defendant Bosques’s motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement [19-1] is granted. Plaintiff's suit is
dismissed in its entirety pursuant to the oral settlement agreement. Enter Memorandum Opinion and
Order.

dl) s@ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of vosces
Notices mailed by judge's staff. JAN 20 2
Notified counsel by telephone. date
ov | Docketing to mail notices. q
a | Mail AO 450 form. Lunoa LoyLsia-siq ik deputy nial
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. i319
PO > i .
courtroom ee ey Oy REP ny date male notin
MF deputy's nie ne
isa OT Sachin
central Clerk's Office mailing depot initia



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION S)
nS

Na
CARMELLA ZAGONE, ) Wr, 0”
) yw
Plaintiff, )
) No, 02 C 6371
Vv. )
) Judge John W. Darrah
AARON BOSQUES and ELEUTERIO MEDINA, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant, Aaron Bosques, moves to dismiss the action pursuant to a settlement.
Plaintiff, Carmella Zagone, opposes Defendant’s motion.

The instant suit arose out of an automobile accident that occurred on February 25, 2002.
Bosques, while operating a vehicle belonging to Defendant Eleuterio Medina, struck Plaintiff and
caused her to sustain personal injuries. At the time of the accident, Medina was insured by
American Heartland Insurance (“Heartland”) with policy limits of $20,000 per person and
$40,000 per occurrence. Bosques was insured by American Service Insurance Company
(“Service”) with policy limits of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per occurrence. Plaintiff was
insured through Economy Premier Assurance Company with underinsured coverage of $100,000
per incident.

On April 16, 2003, Heartland offered Plaintiff its policy limit of $20,000. At this time,
Leslie Milbury, Plaintiff's attorney, made an underinsured motorist claim for $80,000 with
Economy. She informed Economy of the $20,000 offer. Economy’s claim adjuster, in
Minnesota, informed Milbury that she could settle with Heartland and Bosques for $20,000.

On June 26, 2003, Milbury and Bosques’s counsel spoke regarding settling the instant

37


suit. Milbury stated that Plaintiff had settled with her insurance company for $80,000 and had
executed a simple, general release, which she read to Bosques’s counsel. The general release did
not reserve any rights in the settlement agreement, nor did it require the Plaintiff to perform any
further contractual obligations. Milbury also stated that Plaintiff was accepting the $20,000
offered by Heartland to settle all claims against both Defendants, Bosques and Medina. On

June 30, 2003, Milbury informed Bosques’s counsel that she had authority from Plaintiff to
accept $20,000 from Heartland as full settlement of all of Plaintiffs claims in exchange for a
dismissal of her lawsuit and an executed release. A general release was drafted and forwarded to
Milbury for Plaintiff's signature.

On July 8, 2003, Bosques’s counsel telephoned Milbury and was informed that Plaintiff's
insurance company offered Plaintiff $20,000 for an assignment of her claim against Bosques. On
July 17, 2003, Plaintiff signed a release and trust agreement with Plaintiff's insurer, Economy,
for $99,000; included in this amount was the $20,000 offered by Heartland.

Bosques seeks to have the lawsuit dismissed pursuant to the settlement agreement.
Plaintiff does not deny that an oral settlement was reached with Heartland. Plaintiff’s insurance
carrier, Economy, argues that its adjuster was incorrect and mistakenly informed Milbury that
Milbury could settle and that enforcement of the settlement could prejudice its right of
subrogation.

Settlement between parties of disputed claims is encouraged and favored by the courts
and are given full force and effect. See Knoll v. Swanson, 92 Ill. App. 2d 398, 402 (1968). Oral
settlements are enforceable if there is an offer, acceptance, and a meeting of the minds regarding

the terms. See Johnson v. Hermanson, 221 Ml. App. 3d 582, 584 (1991). The offer and