Opinion ID: 2533377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the settlement agreement was enforceable under the Mississippi Statute of Frauds.

Text: ¶ 20. ICRR argues that plaintiffs' settlements are barred by Mississippi's Statute of Frauds, Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-3-1(d), because the alleged agreement could not be performed within fifteen months. We disagree. ¶ 21. Mississippi's Statute of Frauds states, in part, An action shall not be brought whereby to charge a defendant or other party: . . . (d) upon any agreement which is not to be performed within a space of fifteen months from the making thereof; or . . . unless, in each of said cases, the promise or agreement upon which such action may be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith or signed by some person by him or her thereunto lawfully authorized in writing. Miss.Code Ann. § 15-3-1 (Rev.2003). A settlement agreement is a contract. McManus, 569 So.2d at 1215. This Court previously has held that where a contract is for an indefinite period of time with the possibility of performance within fifteen months, it is not within the statute of frauds. American Chocolates, Inc. v. Mascot Pecan Co., Inc., et al., 592 So.2d 93, 95 (Miss. 1991) (citing Beane v. Bowden, 399 So.2d 1358, 1361 (Miss.1981)). ¶ 22. The record reflects that a settlement was reached at the Pittsburgh meeting on January 23, 2004. Since the Pittsburgh meeting, the claims of approximately 180 of the approximately 216 plaintiffs were paid by ICRR well within the fifteen-month time limit designated by Mississippi's Statute of Frauds. Because ICRR could pay and did pay a majority of the plaintiffs' claims in settlement, we find that ICRR could have paid the remaining plaintiffs' claims within the statutory time period. Therefore, ICRR may not claim Mississippi's Statute of Frauds as a defense to this settlement agreement.