Opinion ID: 2156407
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial and Subsequent Events

Text: On August 16, 2002, the case was called for trial. Before the trial began, defendants' counsel brought up the matter of the agreement: MR. FORTE [defendants' counsel]: ... The second issue dealt with a high low stipulation. I have filed a confidential stipulation in the jacket, and I don't know if it got to the jacket yet, Your Honor, but just so that the court is aware, there is a high low agreement in this case. THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain to me what you are talking about. MR. FORTE: Sure. I mean, it's nothing that is going to be said to the jury. But plaintiff and the defendants have agreed that if the jury verdict comes in, in excess of my client's policy, that the maximum they would get would be my client's policy limits. If the verdicts came back in favor of the plaintiff on liability and it was under $20,000, that she would get a minimum of $20,000. MR. MELTMAR [plaintiff's counsel]: Or if it was a defense verdict, she would get $20,000. THE COURT: All right. MR. MELTMAR: So there's a floor of 20. THE COURT: ... [W]hat's the policy limit? MR. MELTMAR: Three hundred thousand dollars. THE COURT: So it's a big  it's still a range. MR. FORTE: Yeah, it's still a gap, so if you were looking at settlement, it's still a large gap there.... THE COURT: There's nothing that I need to do with respect to that, right? MR. FORTE: No, no, I just wanted to alert you of that because it was a potential issue that might come up. Defendants' counsel did not challenge the statement by plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff would receive $20,000 even if the jury found that the defendants were not liable. But plaintiff's counsel did not dispute that the parties had formed a contract on this issue, or that the text of the written stipulation filed with the court reflected the final agreement. The trial began on August 19, and at its conclusion the jury found that the Amatangelos were not liable. The court accordingly entered judgment in their favor. When plaintiff's counsel was informed shortly after trial that the Amatangelos would not be paying the supposedly agreed-upon $20,000 because they believed that the agreement was contingent on a finding of liability, counsel ordered a transcript of the August 16 hearing to resolve the matter. On September 6, 2002, a little more than two weeks after trial, the defendants filed a motion for costs, which the plaintiff opposed. Plaintiff argued that the costs requested were unreasonable and that, in any event, the motion should be denied because the plaintiff was the prevailing party under the agreement. On October 16 the court granted appellants' motion for costs in the amount of $1,287.35, stating in its order: Nothing in the record indicates that the offer of judgment extended in this case was rendered void by the subsequent entry of the high/low agreement of the parties. Further, the correspondence between counsel, copies of which are attached to Defendants' reply, convinces the Court that the high/low agreement was contingent upon a finding of liability by the jury. Accordingly, Defendants may recover costs.... The court entered this order before it saw the transcript of the hearing on August 16, 2002, the day on which both counsel had explained the high-low agreement to the court. After plaintiff's counsel finally received a copy of that transcript on December 10, he filed on December 20 a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, [6] to which he attached a copy of the August 16 transcript. Defendants' counsel filed an opposition, both on jurisdictional grounds (see part II of this opinion) and on the merits. After reviewing the transcript, the trial court reversed its earlier ruling that the agreement was contingent on a finding of liability, concluding instead that the agreement applied notwithstanding the jury's finding on liability. The court said in its order that, regardless of whether the stipulation filed with the court was valid, an agreement had been reached and that it was later modified and the parties recognized the modification before the court. The court relied on Clark v. Clark, 535 A.2d 872, 877 (D.C.1987), and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 4 (1981) to support the new finding. It ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $20,000, minus $1,287.35 in court costs. From that order the defendants noted this appeal.