Opinion ID: 1621259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Edmondses' Claims Regarding Waiver, Estoppel, Release, and Accord and Satisfaction

Text: ¶ 13. The Edmondses argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because their claims were not barred by waiver, estoppel, release, or accord and satisfaction. The first four issues raised on appeal are set out as follows: Issue No. 1: Did the Edmondses waive the claims of lawyer malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty they have asserted against Williamson? Issue No. 2: Are the Edmondses estopped from prosecuting the claims of lawyer malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty they have asserted against Williamson? Issue No. 3: By signing the acknowledgment and separate agreement, did the Edmondses release the claims of lawyer malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty they have asserted against Williamson? Issue No. 4: By signing the acknowledgment and separate agreement, did the Edmondses enter into an accord and satisfaction with Williamson? ¶ 14. The Edmondses argue that the trial court erred in finding that they waived their claims against Williamson by accepting the settlement proceeds from AHP. [3] They also contend that the trial court erred in finding that they were estopped from asserting their claims against Williamson [i]n the same circumstances as the trial court found that the Edmondses waived [their] claims. They further assert that the trial court erred in finding that, by signing the Agreement and the Acknowledgment, the Edmondses had signed a release. [4] Lastly, they argue that the trial court erred in finding that, by signing the Agreement and the Acknowledgment, the Edmondses had entered into an accord and satisfaction with Williamson. [5] ¶ 15. The trial court granted summary judgment on several grounds. First, the trial court found that the Agreement and the Acknowledgment that Edmonds signed were enforceable contracts and that Edmonds was, therefore, bound to the terms of those agreements. As stated above, after agreeing to settle with AHP and signing a Confidential Release, Indemnity and Assignment with AHP on May 5, 2001, Edmonds entered into two agreements with Williamson on May 9, 2001. She signed the Agreement, which explicitly states, in relevant part: The Williamson Law Firm will see to it that LISA EDMONDS receives $1,500,000.00 after applicable expenses as per the acknowledgment and attorneys' fees in the amount of FORTY-FIVE PERCENT (45%). Edmonds also signed the Acknowledgment, which explicitly states, in relevant part, that [t]hree percent of the gross recovery for expenses ordered to be deducted from each settlement by the multi-district litigation authority would be deducted from the settlement proceeds. ¶ 16. Second, the trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that Edmonds' claims were barred because of waiver and equitable estoppel because she signed the Agreement and the Acknowledgment, which set out the terms of her acceptance of the settlement proceeds and then accepted the settlement proceeds. Third, the trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the Agreement and the Acknowledgment satisfied the elements of accord and satisfaction, thus barring Edmonds' claims against Williamson. ¶ 17. Although the Edmondses raise arguments regarding waiver, estoppel, release, and accord and satisfaction on appeal, they never challenge the trial court's first ground for granting summary judgment. The Edmondses do not contest the fact that the Acknowledgment and Agreement are valid and enforceable contracts, and ... the Plaintiff must abide by the terms contained in the agreements. The Edmondses also do not dispute the fact that Edmonds signed these documents and do not otherwise question the trial court's conclusion that Edmonds is, therefore, bound by these documents. Thus, even if the Edmondses were to prevail on their waiver, estoppel, release, and accord and satisfaction claims, the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment would still stand on the ground that Edmonds is bound by the terms of the Agreement and the Acknowledgment, both of which the trial court found to be enforceable. Because the Edmondses do not raise the issue of the validity of these agreements for appellate review, this Court need not address it on the merits. See Trinity Mission Health & Rehab of Holly Springs, LLC v. Lawrence, No.2008-CA-00027-SCT, ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2009 Miss. LEXIS 67, at  13 (Miss. Feb. 12, 2009) (citing In re Hood ex rel. State Tobacco Litigation, 958 So.2d 790, 815 n. 17 (Miss. 2007); Collins v. Tallahatchie County, 876 So.2d 284, 286 n. 5 (Miss.2004)). Therefore, this Court finds that, regardless of the merits of the Edmondses' first four claims, the trial court's grant of summary judgment must be affirmed on the basis of its analysis of the enforceability of the agreements, which is not challenged by the Edmondses.