Court Opinion

ID: 9586433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:10:56.700049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:50.909046
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Chief Justice
(concurring) :
I would concur, the release merely compromised and settled any claim the Mower Estate might have had against Berlant. The release in no way compromised or released any claim Berlant might have against Mowers. In fact, the release specified that it only compromised and released the Mowers’ claims and' without prejudice or admitting any liability on the part of Berlant.
In other words, if one asserted that Ber-lant had ratified the release, still Berlant’s claim would not be barred because the release goes no further than to state that there was a disputed, unliquidated claim against Berlant, which the Mower Estate was releasing for the sum of $5,000, without prejudice to Berlant or admitting liability on his part.
If one were to give effect to the judgment of the trial court, the entire contract would have been rewritten, by adding as additional consideration to the sum of $5,000, a promise of release and compromise of Berlant’s claim against the Mowers. Of course, Berlant would have to consent or ratify such an agreement. This procedure would have been the sagacious course of action, but the estate did not insist on these precautions; the courts may not now supply these additional provisions to the release agreement.
HENRIOD, J., does not participate herein.