Court Opinion

ID: 9788498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:55:19.888013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:11.483238
License: Public Domain

Justice SCHROEDER,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Court. In this case Hopkins made the decision to represent himself. He was competent to understand the nature of the proceedings in which he was involved. It is unrealistic under these circumstances to characterize the statements of Troutner’s attorney as legal advice to Hopkins. It was a method of stating how much his client would pay as part of the negotiations initiated by Hopkins. Regardless, even treating the statements as legal advice, the settlement still should not be set aside.
There is no showing that Hopkins relied upon the statements of Troutner’s attorney. In fact, the record establishes that he did not. Hopkins insisted on more money than the attorney said the case was worth, and he obtained substantially more money in the settlement than the attorney initially said the ease was worth.
There is no showing that Hopkins was harmed. Nothing in the record establishes that the settlement amount did not fall within the range of reasonableness.
Finally, despite the order of the district court that Hopkins return the settlement amount, at the date of the hearing before this Court he had not done so. He has kept the benefits of the settlement but avoided the binding effect of the settlement.
In sum, to justify setting aside the settlement there should be a showing of reliance, harm and fair conduct by the person seeking to avoid the settlement. None of these elements has been shown.