Opinion ID: 1209086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reduction of Judgment Because of the Sears and Decora Settlement

Text: On January 10, 1973, B & R reached an agreement with Warbelow, and a consent judgment was entered for the amount of $618,000. Continental contends that a consent judgment has the same legal effect as a judgment on a verdict and that the consent judgment against B & R for $618,000 in the Warbelow action was subject to reduction by the amounts of the settlements negotiated by Sears and Decora. It argues that such a reduction is required by the Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, particularly AS 09.16.010 and 09.16.040. [23] We conclude that the statute does not require a reduction in the amount awarded under the consent judgment. Although the settlement reached by Warbelow and B & R was entered as a judgment, it was in essence a contract  a settlement agreement. It was certainly not an adjudication on the merits of the Warbelow claim. The nature of a consent judgment [24] has been aptly described by one court as one based on the consent or compromise agreement between the parties. A compromise or consent judgment is a bilateral contract wherein the parties adjust their difference by mutual consent, thereby putting an end to a lawsuit with each party balancing the hope of gain against the fear of loss. [Citations omitted.] Parkerson v. R-5, Inc., 305 So.2d 592, 595 (La. App. 1974). See generally Comment, Consent Judgments, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 1314, 1316 (1959). If the judgment had been the result of a judicial determination of the merits of the case, it might have been subject to reduction under AS 09.16.040(1); [25] or, under AS 09.16.010, [26] such a judgment might have entitled B & R to contribution from Sears and Decora. Such is not the case, however. Although a consent judgment was entered, B & R's liability resulted from a settlement agreement, not from an adjudication. The amount of the settlement was negotiated by the parties, and the settlement was found to be reasonable by a jury that had before it evidence of the Sears and Decora settlements. [27] Since both Warbelow and B & R were fully aware of the Sears and Decora settlements when they agreed to settle the case for $618,000, it must be assumed that they, like the jury, took those prior settlements into consideration in agreeing on the $618,000 amount. Neither the law (AS 09.16.010 and AS 09.16.040) nor common sense requires that one settlement be reduced by the amount of a prior settlement. The superior court therefore properly denied Continental's motion for a reduction of the judgment.