Opinion ID: 6350422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enforcement Remedy

Text: [¶23] In her motion to enforce, Doe sought not only a declaration that the settlement agreement was valid and entry of judgment thereon, but she also sought remedies for breach of the substance of the agreement. In response, in addition to claiming that the contract was void or voidable, Lozano raised other issues that may be defenses, in whole or in part, to an action for breach of contract. In this regard, the court again erred by determining factual issues regarding performance, breach, and remedies without receiving any evidence. [¶24] On a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the court may determine that an agreement is enforceable as a full and final agreement. A court will ordinarily enforce a settlement agreement by entering a judgment in accordance with the agreement, whether by dismissing the action or incorporating the agreement’s terms into a judgment. See, e.g., Muther, 2009 ME 37, ¶ 7, 968 A.2d 539 (stating that a valid settlement agreement is enforceable “and, upon acceptance by the court, is incorporated as a judgment of the court”); Toffling v. Toffling, 2008 ME 90, ¶¶ 8-9, 953 A.2d 375 (“[A]n oral stipulation entered on the record at trial is adequate to support the entry of a judgment finally disposing of the litigation.” (quotation marks omitted)); White, 2005 ME 72, ¶ 8, 875 A.2d 680 (explaining that once the court determined that 16 the parties had a binding settlement, the court issued an order adopting and enforcing the settlement’s terms); Page v. Page, 671 A.2d 956, 958 (Me. 1996) (stating that a “settlement agreement can be summarily enforced by the entry of a judgment”); Transamerica Com. Fin. Corp. v. Birt, 599 A.2d 65, 65 (Me. 1991). [¶25] The determination that a settlement agreement was validly formed with sufficiently definite terms and is entitled to enforcement as a judgment, however, is separate from a determination of whether a party is in breach of the settlement agreement and the remedies therefor. In this case, the court’s judgment was not limited to entry of a judgment based on the settlement agreement. After determining there was a valid agreement, the court went on to determine that Doe had “performed significant partial performance” of the agreement; that Doe had “upheld her obligations under the contract”; that Lozano had remained silent and did not indicate he would challenge the agreement; that Lozano had “defaulted” under the agreement; that Lozano had waived his defenses; that Doe was entitled to a judgment of 17 $80,002; and that Doe was entitled to request attorney’s fees—all without relying on any competent evidence or other factual record.10 [¶26] As stated above, Doe originally moved for summary judgment regarding the settlement but then withdrew her motion. She was given permission to amend her complaint to add a claim for breach of contract but never did so. She filed a separate Superior Court complaint against Lozano for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, but that case was stayed pending further proceedings in the District Court. Any of those procedural mechanisms would be acceptable ways to resolve her allegations of breach of the settlement agreement. What could not be done, however, was entry of a judgment against Lozano on a motion to enforce without any hearing or other factual record. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 10To be clear, Doe’s motion to enforce was not under oath and did not include or rely on any affidavits or other filings that might arguably provide a factual basis for the court’s findings. 18 Daniel D. Feldman, Esq. (orally), Law Office of Daniel Feldman, Yarmouth, for appellant Rudy A. Lozano Fred W. Bopp III, Esq. (orally), Bopp & Guecia, Yarmouth, for appellee Pat Doe Biddeford District Court docket number CV-2018-290 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY