Opinion ID: 1713851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the chancellor abuse his discretion by voiding a portion of the mutual release and settlement agreement as against public policy and enforcing the remainder?

Text: ¶ 18. Hastings argues that the settlement is void because the chancellor abused his discretion by voiding a part of the settlement and enforcing the other. ¶ 19. In the second numbered paragraph of the trial court's final judgment, the chancellor voided a portion of the agreement: The Court further finds that any agreement by Dr. Walter Guillot regarding reporting any actions taken by Dr. Hastings is against public policy and shall not be considered a part of settlement. Basically, part of the proposed settlement included an agreement that Guillot would not report any of Hastings's actions to the State Dental Board. ¶ 20. We do not find Hastings's arguments responsive to this issue. In his brief, Hastings states that in order to establish a contract, there need be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. See Gatlin v. Methodist Med. Ctr., Inc., 772 So.2d 1023, 1029(fn3) (Miss.2000). Hastings argues what is required to establish a contract and then argues that the facts in the case sub judice reveal that no contract was established. His argument does not address the issue of public policy. Finding no case law to the contrary, and recognizing it is well within the chancellor's authority to void parts of a contract as violative of public policy, we find nothing rising to the level of abuse of discretion in the chancellor's actions in this regard. ¶ 21. A review of the record reveals that the chancellor noted it would be good public policy not to enforce this portion of the agreement because we need people who will come forward and report wrong doing if it occurs. Certainly, the trial court was more than justified in finding that it was contrary to public policy to enforce this term of the settlement by keeping improprieties quiet. ¶ 22. Hastings further argues that by the chancellor's removal of this portion of the contract, he has removed the only beneficial aspect of the agreement for Hastings: that he would not be reported to the State Dental Board. To argue that the only benefit to Hastings is to avoid defending himself from possible criminal prosecution as well as loss of a dental license is not a valid argument. Moreover, Hastings benefits from having all claims Guillot may file in the future settled. ¶ 23. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that there was indeed an offer, acceptance, and consideration.