Opinion ID: 2561817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: agreements reached in the course of mediation must be reduced to writing in order to be enforceable by a court[2]

Text: ¶ 12 Utah Code section 78-31b-7(3)(a) (Supp.2007) provides that any settlement agreement between the parties as a result of mediation may be executed in writing, filed with the clerk of the court, and enforceable as a judgment of the court. While this statute recognizes that parties are free to enter into an agreement that is not executed in writing (any settlement agreement . . . may be executed in writing (emphasis added)), only agreements executed in writing will be enforceable as a judgment of the court. A court cannot enforce the terms of an oral agreement reached in mediation without requiring parties to disclose, and the court to consider, confidential settlement negotiations. Absent the existence of an exception, see supra ¶ 9, we are not prepared to invade the confidentiality protections afforded parties to mediation in this manner. A rule permitting courts to enforce only written mediation agreements operates in tandem with the rules providing mediation confidentiality. The existence of an executed agreement provides a court with the means to use its power to enforce the terms of a written agreement or to determine whether the terms of the written agreement have been violated without requiring it to delve into the confidential process that led to the creation of the agreement. [3] The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws explained in a comment to the Uniform Mediation Act that oral agreements were intentionally not included in the list of exceptions to mediation privilege. The comment states: This exception [for written agreements] is noteworthy only for what is not included: oral agreements. The disadvantage of exempting oral settlements is that nearly everything said during a mediation session could bear on either whether the parties came to an agreement or the content of the agreement. In other words, an exception for oral agreements has the potential to swallow the rule of privilege. Nat'l Conf. of Comm'rs on Unif. State Laws, Uniform Mediation Act, Section 6, Reporter's cmt. 2, Section 6(a)(1), Record of an agreement (Aug.2003). Although we are not applying the rules contained in either the Uniform Mediation Act or the UUMA in this case, [4] see supra note 2, the policy underlying the comment included by the drafters of the Uniform Mediation Act is reflective of our analysis and of our conclusion that a court can enforce only a mediation agreement that has been reduced to writing. ¶ 13 A writing requirement also encourages parties to prepare a comprehensive, final settlement agreement free from misunderstandings and ambiguities. This is particularly important in the mediation context where parties are often encouraged to consider hypothetical solutions to their dispute creating an informal atmosphere where parties need to be reminded of the import of their final nods of assent [and s]igning a writing is a simpleformality that most people understand as a binding act. Ellen E. Deason, Enforcing Mediated Settlement Agreements: Contract Law Collides with Confidentiality, 35 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 33, 76-77 (2001); see also Vernon, 732 N.E.2d at 810 (Requiring written agreements, signed by the parties, is more likely to maintain mediation as a viable avenue for clear and enduring dispute resolution rather than one leading to further uncertainty and conflict.). Requiring a writing also permits parties to ferret out areas where additional clarification is necessary. Although declining to adopt a bright-line rule requiring that mediation agreements be reduced to writing, the court in Catamount Slate Prods. v. Sheldon, 176 Vt. 158, 845 A.2d 324 (2003), noted how the process of reducing an agreement to writing often raises additional issues necessary to the resolution of a dispute. [5] In quoting the Second Circuit, the Vermont Supreme Court explained, `[T]he actual drafting of a written instrument will frequently reveal points of disagreement, ambiguity, or omission which must be worked out prior to execution. Details that are unnoticed or passed by in oral discussion will be pinned down when the understanding is reduced to writing.' Id. ¶ 23 (quoting Winston v. Mediafare Entm't Corp., 777 F.2d 78, 82 (2d Cir.1986)). ¶ 14 A core principle of mediation is the notion of party autonomy, founded on the belief that the parties in conflict are best suited to resolve their dispute in a way that fits their needs and interests. While traditional contract laws, under certain circumstances, permit courts to enforce oral agreements, we do not think this is an appropriate role for courts when the putativo agreement was reached within the context of a mediation. A writing requirement both honors autonomy and provides an added means of producing a workable and durable agreement. In this case, disclosure of confidential mediation information by the parties in their briefs and throughout the record below is troublesome. Conduct and statements made in the course of a mediation are not admissible in a later court proceeding. Utah Code Ann. § 78-31b-8(2) (No evidence concerning the fact, conduct, or result of an ADR proceeding may be subject to discovery or admissible at any subsequent trial of the same case or same issues between the same parties.). We are concerned, in the context of the statutory mandate of confidentiality, by the case with which the parties and the trial court discussed mediation communications. We hope this opinion will put future litigants and courts on notice that the statutory bar is to be carefully observed. With respect to this case, we order the portions of the record disclosing confidential mediation information sealed and further order that any of the trial judges who have reviewed confidential information from the mediation in this case recuse themselves from further proceedings. See Lyons v. Booker, 1999 UT App 172, ¶ 9, 982 P.2d 1142 (ordering the judges hearing this motion, having reviewed the moving papers in question, [ ] recused from further proceedings).