Opinion ID: 2598851
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge Thompson's findings

Text: At the April 12 hearing, Judge Thompson found that the degree of Henry's participation indicated his intent to engage in a final, binding process on the day of mediation. Judge Thompson noted eleven separate instances in the recital process where Henry made topical and relevant observations regarding settlement of various issues: The subjects being discussed at the time he's making his contribution, all of which seem sensibl[e] contributions on his part where he points out the difficulty in disposing of a documented vessel, where he reminds the participants that Ms. Ford can't mail firearms.... I mean these are all very sensible observations. [These do] not appear to be observations that would be made by a person who is in so much pain [he] can hardly be aware of what's going on around him. He seems to have been a full-fledged participant there. There is no expression to suggest that Henry was suffering any type of pain, that he in some way did not agree with the final settlement, or that he did not understand what was taking place. Henry argues that this is because he tuned out and just wanted the mediation to be over. We rejected a similar argument in Pavek v. Curran. [10] In Pavek, Curran was present and spoke at the hearing [11] and did not object to the terms of the agreement. [12] Curran then claimed she did not understand the significance of the agreement and alleged that the settlement was invalid. [13] We found Curran's claim groundless, finding that her presence at the hearing without objection and her participation in it implied her understanding. [14] Similarly, in light of Henry's active participation, particularly at the end of the day when he now alleges he was exhausted and unable to understand the process, the superior court's finding that Henry intended to settle the case on August 31 was not clearly erroneous. [15]