Opinion ID: 1712397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the post mediation agreement reflects a meeting of the minds between the parties.

Text: ¶ 21. Chantey argues that the parties' settlement agreement was not the product of a meeting of the minds. Specifically, it alleges that additional handwritten language which states, or matters which could have been raised in the complaint, was added to the agreement without Kazery's knowledge and thus was never discussed nor ever explained. Citing Viverette v. State Highway Comm'n, 656 So.2d 102 (Miss.1995), Chantey claims that Kazery's lack of knowledge as to this phrase prevented there being a meeting of the minds. ¶ 22. The law espoused in Viverette is easily distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Viverette, we reversed an order of the trial court enforcing the parties' settlement agreement due to the fact that there was insufficient evidence of a meeting of the minds. The dispute in Viverette was over the consideration of a $2,800 payment made before settlement under the quick take provision found in our eminent domain statutory scheme. Id. at 103. In remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings concerning this provision, we noted that there is no evidence in this record that the effect of the quick take deposit was considered and agreed upon. Id. Notably, in Viverette, the trial court entered an order without having entertained evidence concerning whether there had been a meeting of the minds between the parties concerning the effect of the quick take deposit. ¶ 23. Today's case evidences a clear intent by both parties to be bound by the terms of their negotiated settlement. Moreover, the evidence clearly demonstrates that both parties fully acquiesced in all the terms included in their agreement which was reached after an eight and one-half hour mediation conference. ¶ 24. Not only is Chantey's argument that there was no meeting of the minds unsupported by the record, it is contrary to Mississippi law. In Terminix Intern., Inc. v. Rice, 904 So.2d 1051 (Miss.2004), we reiterated the well-accepted contract principle that parties are charged with the responsibility of reading the agreements they execute, stating: It is well settled under Mississippi law that a contracting party is under a legal obligation to read a contract before signing it. McKenzie Check Advance of Miss., LLC v. Hardy, 866 So.2d at 455. (citing Godfrey, Bassett & Kuykendall Architects, Ltd. v. Huntington Lumber & Supply Co., 584 So.2d 1254, 1257 (Miss.1991), Koenig v. Calcote, 199 Miss. 435, 25 So.2d 763 (1946), McCubbins v. Morgan, 199 Miss. 153, 23 So.2d 926 (1945)). Under McKenzie, the law presumes that Dr. Rice read the agreement he signed with Terminix. Had he done so, he would have seen the arbitration clause in the contract. Furthermore, this Court has held that [i]n Mississippi, a person is charged with knowing the contents of any document that he executes. Russell, 826 So.2d at 725 (citing J.R. Watkins Co. v. Runnels, 252 Miss. 87, 172 So.2d 567, 571 (1965) (A person cannot avoid a written contract which he has entered into on the ground that he did not read it or have it read to him.)). 904 So.2d at 1056. ¶ 25. Mississippi law precludes Chantey from asserting ignorance in regards to a term or phrase clearly written into the parties' agreement. Moreover, Chantey does not deny that the phrase to which it objects existed in handwritten form on the face of the parties' settlement agreement at the time of execution. It follows that in negotiating with Malaco, Kazery, as president of Chantey, should be expected to have read and have full knowledge of the contractual language contained in the parties' settlement agreement. Kazery, on behalf of Chantey, attempts to argue that after a decade of litigation and over eight and one-half hours of mediation, he, accompanied by two attorneys, blindly signed or was duped into acquiescing in contractual language with which he did not agree. This argument is unconvincing. As stated, the evidence presented at the hearing clearly demonstrates that the parties reviewed and understood the terms of the agreement. ¶ 26. Thus we find that Chantey's assertion that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties is wholly without merit inasmuch as Kazery was an able participant in a freely negotiated bargaining process which produced an agreement of which he was presumed to have full knowledge. This issue is thus without merit.