Opinion ID: 149116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Joint Settlement

Text: We start with the Gonzalezes' argument that theirs was not a joint settlementan argument they base on the face of the Settlement Agreement. We interpret a settlement agreement under contract law. T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje, 586 F.3d 6, 11 (D.C.Cir.2009). Hence, we aim to give effect to the mutual intentions of the parties. NRM Corp. v. Hercules, Inc., 758 F.2d 676, 681 (D.C.Cir.1985). In the Settlement Agreement, Rachel and Richard agreed to forever irrevocably and fully remise, release, acquit and discharge the defendants from liability [i]n exchange for $625,000. Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 2-3; see id. at 1 (naming both Rachel and Richard as Plaintiffs). It is hard to imagine a clearer indication that the parties' mutual intent was to have both spouses release their respective claims against the defendants as consideration for compensation. In other words, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Rachel and Richard jointly settled. Paragraph 13 doesn't change things. It says, Defendants understand that Plaintiffs as between themselves and in consultation with their attorneys have allocated the consideration paid under this agreement to Richard Gonzalez.... Settlement Agreement ¶ 13 (emphasis added). It adds that this provision is entirely the responsibility of Plaintiffs and their attorneys and shall not otherwise affect their promises contained herein. Id. Put simply, this paragraph does not affect the agreement between the Gonzalezes and the defendants. The defendants have still agreed to pay the Gonzalezes $625,000 in exchange for the Gonzalezes dismissing their claims. This paragraph merely reflects a decision by the Gonzalezes (and their lawyer) to channel Rachel's share of the settlement proceeds to Richard in a vain attempt to avoid reimbursing Labor for Rachel's workers' compensation benefits. Indeed, if Rachel were not entitled to settlement proceeds under the Agreement, she and Richard would not have anything to allocate as between themselves. [6] Id. In essence, the Gonzalezes want to argue that Rachel settled her claims with the defendants for no money or property but instead only to benefit her husband. That sounds like an interesting case. See Lorenzetti, 467 U.S. at 173-74, 104 S.Ct. 2284 (beneficiary not required to reimburse Labor unless she received money or other property in satisfaction of [third-party] liability); Smith v. Mallick, 514 F.3d 48, 52 (D.C.Cir.2008) (`[A] release, like any other contract, must be supported by sufficient consideration, and the consideration is not sufficient unless the releasor receives something of value to which he or she had no previous right.' (quoting Interdonato v. Interdonato, 521 A.2d 1124, 1134 (D.C.1987))) (alteration in Smith ). But that is not this case. In this case, the defendants paid the PlaintiffsRachel and Richard Gonzalez$625,000 in exchange for Plaintiffs releasing their claims. This was a joint settlement. [7]