Opinion ID: 2070589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of Vacating the Consent Order

Text: The trial justice, we hold, properly vacated the consent order because the town's solicitor never possessed any actual or apparent authority on behalf of the town to compromise the pending claims involving Mario's on the terms set forth in the consent order. Moreover, the alleged conduct by individual town officials assuring Mario's that it was or would be grandfathered against the town's anti-nudity ordinances was insufficient as a matter of law to estop the town from vacating the settlement or enforcing the anti-nudity ordinances against Mario's. In the course of defending the town against Mario's first lawsuit challenging the validity of ordinance No. 965, the solicitor signed a consent order that purported to settle the case. There, he agreed that the town would not enforce the anti-nudity provisions of any present or future ordinances against Mario's. But the council never had authorized the solicitor to settle Mario's lawsuit on this basis. Indeed, even the council would not have had the power to bind future councils by promising not to enforce yet-to-be-enacted ordinances against Mario's. See Parent v. Woonsocket Housing Authority, 87 R.I. 444, 447, 143 A.2d 146, 147 (1958). Thus, the solicitor unquestionably lacked theactual authority to settle the case on the terms set forth in the consent order. In addition, however, the solicitor lacked any implied or apparent power to settle such a case on behalf of his or her client unless the client had authorized the attorney to do so or thereafter had ratified the attorney's settlement. See Parrillo v. Chalk, 681 A.2d 916, 919 (R.I.1996). And unlike the situation in Mansolillo v. Employee Retirement Board of Providence, 668 A.2d 313 (R.I.1995), the municipality in this case did not stipulate that its attorney was authorized to settle the lawsuit in question. We have repeatedly held that the authority of a public agent to bind a municipality must be actual   . Warwick Teachers' Union Local No. 915 v. Warwick School Committee, 624 A.2d 849, 850-51 (R.I.1993). Consequently, any representations made by such an agent lacking actual authority are not binding on the municipality   . School Committee of Providence v. Board of Regents for Education, 429 A.2d 1297, 1302 (R.I.1981). Moreover, the general rule throughout this country is that, absent actual authority to do so, a municipal attorney may not compromise claims or consent to judgments against the municipality. See generally, 10 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 29.15 at 308 (3d Ed.1999). Because the town solicitor had no actual or apparent authority to compromise the litigation between Mario's and the town or to enter into the consent order on behalf of the town, the council was entitled to reject its terms upon receiving notice of the proposed settlement. For these same reasons, Mario's professed reliance upon private discussions with and alleged statements by individual members of the council, the town clerk, and/or the solicitor to representatives of Mario's and upon the town's alleged past practice of allowing the solicitor to settle certain cases involving the town without a formal prior vote of the council were misplaced and unjustified. Communications, representations, and alleged acts of this kind are insufficient as a matter of law to bind a municipality to future acts or inaction. See, e.g., School Committee of Providence, 429 A.2d at 1302 (holding that school principal's alleged representations to a per-diem substitute teacher that he would be employed until the absent teacher returned to work were ultra vires ; therefore, the substitute teacher was not entitled to rely thereon). Rather, a city or town can bind itself on such matters only by the official acts of its town council or by the authorized actions of its representatives. See El Marocco Club, Inc., 746 A.2d at 1234. According to Johnston's charter, the council may act in its official capacity only in the form of a rule, an ordinance, or a resolution. See Town of Johnston Town Home Rule Charter, § 3-9. There is no record in the council's minutes of any meeting on or before October 7, 1997, (the date of the consent order) evidencing any resolutions or other action taken by the council requesting, authorizing, or permitting the solicitor to settle Mario's claims on the terms set forth in the consent order, nor is there any charter provision that would authorize the solicitor's settlement. Without a properly convened meeting at which council members vote on the record in their official capacity, the council cannot be deemed to have exercised or delegated to the solicitor its powers to compromise Mario's lawsuit against the town. Id. Thus, any putative reliance by Mario's on communications from the solicitor, individual council members, or from other town officials concerning Mario's alleged grandfathered status vis-à-vis the town's anti-nudity ordinances would not have been justified. See El Morocco Club, Inc., 746 A.2d at 1233-34 (holding that party asserting equitable estoppel must justifiably rely upon misrepresentation made by authorized municipal agents). But Mario's further argues that, even if the solicitor initially lacked the authority to bind the town to a settlement with Mario's that would grandfather its preexisting nude-entertainment operations, the council later ratified his actions in doing so, thereby committing the town to the settlement. But the facts do not support its contention. On October 20, 1997, during a town council executive session, the solicitor reported to the three town council members who were present that he had settled the town's pending case with Mario's. Although two of the three council members who were present at that meeting then voted to ratify this settlement as it was reported to them orally by the solicitor, one week later the council unanimously passed a resolution reconsidering that vote and rejecting the settlement. Like other deliberative bodies, the council possessed the undoubted right to vote and reconsider its vote upon measures before it. Johnson v. Eldredge, 430 A.2d 1069, 1071-72 (R.I.1981) (quoting 4 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 13.48, at 599 (3d. ed. rev.1969)). The council's rules and charter provided that when a vote has been passed, it shall be in order for the council to move its reconsideration any time within thirty (30) days of its initial passage, at any special and regular meeting. Johnston Council Rules, 1997-99, Article IX. Here, one week after the initial two-to-one vote ratifying the settlement, the council unanimously reconsidered that vote and rejected it by a five-to-zero margin. Accordingly, the town, duly acting through its council, ultimately refused to ratify the settlement embodied in the solicitor's consent order, thereby entitling the town to obtain a court order vacating the settlement under these extraordinary circumstances. See Richardson v. Smith, 691 A.2d 543, 546 (R.I. 1997) (listing lack of actual consent to an order as an extraordinary circumstance that could be relied on by a trial justice to vacate an order under Super. R.Civ.P. 60(b)); see also Brown v. Amaral, 460 A.2d 7, 11 (R.I.1983). A motion for relief from a judgment such as the consent order under Rule 60(b) of Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure is addressed to the trial justice's sound judicial discretion and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Brown, 460 A.2d at 11. Here, we hold that because the solicitor lacked actual authority to enter into the settlement and the town refused to ratify the unauthorized settlement, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion nor err as a matter of law when he vacated the consent order. See Bendix Corp. v. Norberg, 404 A.2d 505, 506 (R.I.1979) (holding that Rule 60(b)(6) vest[s] the Superior Court with broad power to vacate judgments whenever that action is appropriate to accomplish justice but that `the circumstances must be extraordinary to justify relief'); see also Bradford Exchange v. Trein's Exchange, 600 F.2d 99, 102 (7th Cir.1979) (holding that an attorney's lack of authority to consent to a final disposition of his client's case would be grounds for the client to have a resulting consent order vacated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)). Hence, we have no basis to disturb the trial justice's vacation of the consent order.