W89-668 Precedential Processed

Smith v. Schultz

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed June 22, 1989 · 546 So. 2d 596

Cited by

Dammann v. Molero 709 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Bennett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 665 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Scott v. Green 621 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Tastet v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 600 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Vest v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 493 So. 2d 877
Lytle v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 285 So. 2d 289
F&S EQUIP. CO. v. Intern. Matex Tank Terminals 469 So. 2d 256

Opinion text

546 So.2d 596 (1989) Sampson B. SMITH v. Meredith SCHULTZ, et al. No. W89-668. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. June 22, 1989. Gold, Weems, Sam N. Poole, Alexandria, for defendant/applicant. Edward A. Kaplan, Alexandria, for plaintiff/respondent. Before FORET, KNOLL and KING, JJ. WRIT DENIED: La.C.C. Art. 3071 requires that contracts of compromise must be reduced to writing to be valid and enforceable. *597 See Vest v. Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co., 493 So.2d 877 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1986) and Lytle v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark, N.J., 285 So.2d 289 (La. App. 3 Cir.1973). The exhibits in this writ application reveal that respondent apparently verbally agreed to settle his personal injury and property damage claims, however, the settlement draft drawn by relator was never negotiated and the receipt and release was never signed by respondent. Relator argues that the letter by respondent's counsel dated March 8, 1989 is sufficient to comply with the requirement of La.C.C. Art. 3071. Although attorneys are presumed to have the authority to negotiate a settlement proposal for their clients, attorneys may not enter into a binding agreement without their client's clear and express consent. F & S Equip, v. Intern. Matex Tank Terminals, 469 So.2d 256 (La.App. 4 Cir.1985). From the writ application and exhibits presented, it is clear that the respondent did not give his clear and express consent for his attorney to accept the proposed settlement. Under these facts we find the "settlement agreement" does not comply with La.C.C. Art. 3071 and hence is not enforceable. For these reasons we find no error in the ruling of the trial court.