Opinion ID: 4544175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Proposed Settlement Agreement

Text: Wells Fargo’s counsel thereafter circulated a proposed settlement agreement to the parties, including McKenna’s attorney. McKenna instructed her attorney not to sign anything on her behalf, as she did not agree to the settlement terms. McKenna did not sign the settlement 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  documents. McKenna’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on October 27, 2014, citing McKenna’s refusal to sign settlement documents. The circuit court granted the motion. McKenna has proceeded pro se since her counsel’s withdrawal. Defendants filed their Motion to Enforce on November 5, 2014. Defendants requested that the motion be granted and that an Order enter herein enforcing the terms and conditions of the settlement reached by Plaintiff and the Defendants at the Settlement held on October 21, 2014 and requiring Plaintiff to execute the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation and or otherwise permitting the Clerk of Court, pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawaii, to sign the Stipulation . . . . On November 14, 2014, McKenna filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce. McKenna attached a declaration to her opposition in which she claimed that, essentially, her verbal assent to the settlement conference terms was invalid. McKenna asserted, I was told during the settlement conference multiple times by [the circuit court] “It is not about the merits of the case, you cannot afford $100,000 to go to trial.” During the same conversation I replied to [the circuit court] directly this case is well documented and I feel confident presenting emails and professional reports to professional witnesses pro-se. [The circuit court] replied to me I could not afford the professional witnesses. McKenna also stated that “[t]owards the end of the settlement conference when we were between $30-$60K, I was feeling sick [and] asked to leave and was told no, I could not by [the circuit court].” 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  The circuit court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce on November 24, 2014. At the hearing, McKenna argued that there had been no meeting of the minds at the settlement conference, that the settlement agreement lacked essential terms about repairing her condominium, that the proposed settlement agreement contained terms she had not agreed to, and that the settlement was invalid because the parties did not attend the settlement conference but sent attorneys in their stead. After confirming that each Defendant had given full settlement authority to their attorney, the circuit court granted the Motion to Enforce, finding that there was a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms of the settlement. However, the circuit court found that the settlement agreement contained terms beyond what had been agreed to at the settlement conference. The circuit court stated: So the court will grant the motion to enforce settlement. With respect to the specific settlement agreement, the court will take the matter under advisement as to what, uh, it will, uh, allow a clerk to enter. Um, the court will not be going outside the terms of the settlement. Uh, there were no agreements regarding nondisparagement and things of that ilk. So the court will look carefully at the, uh, settlement agreement and/or, uh, issue something separate from, uh, what is submitted to the court. But with respect to the essential terms, the court finds that they were agreed upon and will, uh, grant the motion to enforce settlement. Defendants submitted a proposed order granting their 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Motion to Enforce. McKenna filed a motion objecting to the proposed order. Therein, McKenna claimed that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement were different from those she agreed to at the settlement conference. In her motion, McKenna reiterated that, for several reasons, her assent to the settlement conference terms was invalid. For example, McKenna argued that the circuit court compelled McKenna to settle when the circuit court “improperly introduced [the] confidential Mediation amount as a starting point for settlement negotiations . . . said [McKenna] could not leave when [she] asked to go [and] repeatedly insisted [McKenna] could not afford to go to trial or afford [] expert witnesses.” McKenna also contended that she had not been present at the drafting of the proposed settlement agreement, that she was “coerced, and under duress” at the settlement conference, and that she “never agreed at the October 21, 2014 Settlement Conference to all the Material and Essential Terms and Conditions as described and enumerated in the [proposed settlement agreement][.]” Defendants opposed the motion. McKenna filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing on December 2, 2014. Therein, McKenna argued that genuine issues of material fact were present and that as the circuit court should view motions to enforce settlement agreements by the 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  same standard as motions for summary judgment, she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. On February 6, 2015, the circuit court held a hearing on McKenna’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. At the hearing, the circuit court found that the motion was essentially a motion to reconsider the court’s oral grant of Defendants’ motion to enforce, for which an order had not yet been issued. Accordingly, the circuit court denied McKenna’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing: The Court will deny the motion to order evidentiary hearing, finding that the motion is essentially a motion to reconsider the motion to enforce settlement for which an order has not been issued. To the extent that the parties are requesting further ruling of the Court, the Court finds that the settlement conference that was held on October 21st, 2014, was an arm’s length settlement conference. All parties were represented by counsel. The Court satisfied itself that all counsel had authority of their clients, if their client was not here, that they had the appropriate authority to act. The Court was satisfied that the defense counsel had authority. To that end then, the Court conducted extensive settlement conferences in which Ms. McKenna was a full and active participant [] with her attorney. As the result of that lengthy settlement conference, a settlement agreement was reached, the material terms of which were placed on the record. Based upon the record before it, the Court can find no misconduct on the part of any defense counsel based upon their conduct and representations that were made during the course of the settlement conference and in terms of their conduct since. To the extent that no settlement agreement has been executed, that [sic] Court finds that that lays squarely in the lap of Ms. McKenna. Ms. McKenna indicated, shortly after the settlement conference, her intention not to execute a settlement agreement. As a result of that, her attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. That motion was granted. Prior to the withdrawal of counsel, it would have been inappropriate, and that would have been attorney misconduct had either, any counsel attempted to contact 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  and negotiate directly with Ms. McKenna regarding any matter relating to settlement. In large part, the motion to order evidentiary hearing is attempts [sic] to either reargue the underlying merits of the case, which Ms. McKenna gave up in reaching a settlement in this case, or were previously covered during the motion to enforce settlement. For all of those reasons, the motion to order evidentiary hearing is denied. The circuit court entered a written order denying McKenna’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing on March 4, 2015 (Order Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing).