Opinion ID: 1573671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Manner by which a settlement agreement may be enforced

Text: Missouri does not have a specific process for enforcing an agreement settling a pending case. Barton v. Snellson, 735 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo.App.1987). Settlement may be raised as an affirmative defense or, as here, via a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Id. A motion to enforce a settlement adds to the underlying case a collateral action seeking specific performance of the agreement. Landmark Bank v. First Nat. Bank in Madison, 738 S.W.2d 922, 923 (Mo.App. 1987). The moving party (here, the defendants) must prove the existence of the agreement by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Id. On the other hand, express authority to settle is presumed where the Eatons' attorney of record asserts such authority. Leffler v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 612 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo. App.1981). In Leffler v. Bi-State Development Agency, the defendant moved to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached in a plaintiff's suit for damages. 612 S.W.2d 835, 836 (Mo.App.1981). The plaintiff denied that his attorney had authority to accept defendant's offer to settle. Id. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion before granting defendant's motion to enforce. Id. In affirming the judgment, the court held that a presumption of express authority to settle arises when the attorney of record asserts such authority. Id. at 837. The presumption may be overcome by the party disputing the attorney's authority, although that party bears a substantial burden of proof. Id.