Court Opinion

ID: 9954936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 14:08:59.714599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:06.747616
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
        This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
     internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-2034-22

EVELYN E. MOUROUNAS,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PARK CHATEAU ESTATE
& GARDENS, IN THE
PARK CHATEAU CATERERS,
LLC, d/b/a IN THE PARK
CHATEAU, IN THE PARK
CHATEAU REALTY, LLC, and
THE PRINT SHOPPE, INC.,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________

THE PRINT SHOPPE, INC.,

          Defendant/Third-Party
          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FELLERS, INC.,

     Third-Party Defendant-
     Respondent.
_____________________________
FELLERS, INC.,

     Fourth-Party Plaintiff-
     Respondent,

v.

AVERY DENNISON
CORPORATION and ORAFOL
AMERICAS, INC.,

     Fourth-Party Defendants-
     Respondents.
_____________________________

           Submitted March 18, 2024 – Decided March 27, 2024

           Before Judges Mawla and Vinci.

           On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
           Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-3891-20.

           James R. Baez (Sacco & Fillas, LLP), attorney for
           appellant.

           Zirulnik, DeMille & Vilachá, attorneys for respondents
           Park Chateau Estate & Gardens, In the Park Chateau
           Caterers, LLC, d/b/a In the Park Chateau, In the Park
           Chateau Realty, LLC (Virginia E. Hughes, on the
           brief).

           Law Office of Hermesmann & Coyne, attorneys for
           respondent The Print Shoppe, Inc. (Albertina Marie
           Amendola, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

                                                                    A-2034-22
                                     2
      Plaintiff Evelyn E. Mourounas appeals from an order granting the motion

of defendants Park Chateau Estate & Gardens, In the Park Chateau Caterers,

LLC, d/b/a In the Park Chateau Realty, LLC ("Park Chateau"), and The Print

Shoppe, Inc. ("Print Shoppe") to enforce an oral settlement reached during

mediation. Because the parties did not reduce the settlement to a signed written

agreement during or after the mediation as required by Willingboro Mall, Ltd.

v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., 215 N.J. 242 (2013), and Gold Tree Spa, Inc. v. PD

Nail Corp., 475 N.J. Super. 240 (App. Div. 2023), we are constrained to reverse.

      Plaintiff alleged injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on the dance

floor at Park Chateau. On January 25, 2023, the parties participated in a private

non-binding mediation.     Plaintiff did not attend the mediation.      She was

represented at the mediation by her attorney, James R. Baez, Esq. At the

mediation, Baez agreed to a monetary settlement with Park Chataeu and Print

Shoppe. The parties did not execute a written settlement agreement before the

mediation ended. Later that day, Baez learned plaintiff underwent additional

treatment for her injuries and was scheduled to undergo ankle surgery in April

2023. Upon receiving the draft settlement agreement a few days after the

mediation, Baez advised defendants plaintiff would not agree to the settlement

and refused to sign the written agreement.

                                                                           A-2034-22
                                       3
      On February 14, 2023, Park Chateau filed a motion to enforce the

settlement, which Print Shoppe joined. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing

the agreement reached during the mediation was contingent on her approval.

      On March 3, the court entered an order granting defendants' motion

supported by a written statement of reasons.1 The court found the parties

reached an enforceable agreement because Baez had authority to enter into the

agreement, there is a strong public policy in favor of settlements, and the parties

agreed to the essential terms of the settlement. On appeal, plaintiff argues there

was never a binding settlement agreement because any agreement reached

through mediation was contingent on her approval and she rejected the proposed

settlement after the mediation.

      "Our review of a motion to enforce settlement is de novo and considers

whether the 'available competent evidence, considered in a light most favorable

to the non-moving party, is insufficient to permit the judge . . . to resolve the

disputed factual issues in favor of the non-moving party.'" Gold Tree Spa, 475

N.J. Super. at 245 (quoting Amatuzzo v. Kozmiuk, 305 N.J. Super. 469, 474-75

1
  Third-party and fourth-party claims were also asserted against other entities.
Those entities were not parties to the alleged settlement, and the third-party and
fourth-party claims were not addressed in the court's order enforcing the
settlement. Nothing in this opinion is intended to affect the viability of those
claims on remand.
                                                                             A-2034-22
                                        4
(App. Div. 1997)). The party seeking to enforce the settlement has the burden

of proving a valid settlement was reached. Amatuzzo, 305 N.J. Super. at 475.

        A valid settlement agreement requires an offer and acceptance by the

parties, "and the terms of the agreement must 'be sufficiently definite [so] "that

the performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable

certainty."'" GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Willoughby, 230 N.J. 172, 185 (2017)

(quoting Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435 (1992)). There must

be an "unqualified acceptance to conclude the manifestation of assent."

Weichert, 128 N.J. at 435-36 (quoting Johnson & Johnson v. Charmley Drug

Co., 11 N.J. 526, 539 (1953)). "[I]f parties agree on essential terms and manifest

an intention to be bound by those terms, they have created an enforceable

contract." Id. at 435. "Where the parties do not agree to one or more essential

terms, however, courts generally hold that the agreement is unenforceable."

Ibid.

        In Willingboro, our Supreme Court held "a settlement that is reached at

mediation but not reduced to a signed written agreement will not be

enforceable." 215 N.J. at 263. In Gold Tree Spa, we concluded, consistent with

Willingboro, because "[t]he parties did not sign the draft settlement

agreement . . . it is unenforceable under Willingboro's broad, bright-line rule."

                                                                            A-2034-22
                                        5
475 N.J. Super. at 245. Therefore, "settlement through the mediation process

only occurs when the parties agree in writing." Ibid.

      Here, the oral settlement reached at mediation was never reduced to a

signed written agreement during or after the mediation. Pursuant to Willingboro

and Gold Tree Spa, the settlement is not enforceable. To the extent we have not

addressed any remaining arguments, it is because they lack sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                         A-2034-22
                                       6