Opinion
A20-0967
03-02-2021
Claudia Modich, Appellant, v. Jeffrey M. Stalboerger, et al., Respondents, Owen N. Olson, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OPINION
St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69HI-CV-18-137 Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Jesson, Judge. BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2018, self-represented appellant Claudia Modich and neighbor-respondents Jeffrey and Lisa Stalboerger (the Stalboergers) signed a "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Releases" (settlement agreement) to resolve a boundary dispute. Modich argues that the district court erred by summarily granting the Stalboergers' motion to enforce the settlement agreement because she did not understand the agreement, and there are genuine issues of material fact.
Modich also argues, for the first time on appeal, that she was under duress, that her former attorney committed professional malpractice, and that the settlement agreement is ambiguous. These issues were not raised before or decided by the district court, and we therefore do not consider them. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). Other arguments raised are not supported legally or factually. Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971). Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the issues raised and conclude that they are without merit.
2. The settlement agreement states that the parties "shall enter into an Easement Agreement" (easement agreement), allowing the Stalboergers to continue using "Four Acres" on Modich's property for limited purposes: "cutting hay, grazing cattle and inspection and maintenance of fences and ingress and egress related to those uses." In consideration and in exchange, the Stalboergers and their heirs release claims to the property, "including but not limited to claims of adverse possession and boundary by practical location, related to or arising from the disputed boundary line." Counsel represented Modich during the settlement negotiations, at the time the parties executed the settlement agreement, and for some time thereafter.
3. Months after the parties signed the settlement agreement, counsel representing each of the parties drafted the easement agreement together. Modich refused to sign it. The Stalboergers then moved the district court to enforce the settlement agreement, which required the parties to execute the easement agreement.
4. At the motion hearing to enforce the settlement agreement, Modich argued that she did not authorize her attorney to settle the dispute, that she did not understand the terms of the settlement agreement, and that the settlement agreement governs a "different piece of property." The district court summarily granted the Stalboergers' motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to its meaning or validity.
5. "Settlement of disputes without litigation is highly favored, and such settlements will not be lightly set aside by the courts." Johnson v. St. Paul Ins. Cos., 305 N.W.2d 571, 573 (Minn. 1981) (citations omitted). District courts have the inherent power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement when its terms are clear and unambiguous. Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Prop., Inc., 743 N.W.2d 267, 271-72 (Minn. 2008) (recognizing courts regard settlement agreements as contracts). District courts must consider a motion to enforce a settlement agreement as they would a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 273. When a district court grants a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, we review its decision for an abuse of discretion. Johnson, 305 N.W.2d at 573.
6. Because it is undisputed that Modich personally signed the settlement agreement, it is immaterial whether her attorney at the time had authority to settle the matter on her behalf. Modich admits she agreed to the settlement agreement although she now regrets "accepting it all" based on her alleged misunderstanding of its effect. Modich does not argue that the Stalboergers share her misunderstanding. Because a unilateral mistake about the effect of the settlement agreement is not an excuse, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding it valid and granting the Stalboergers' motion to enforce it. See Schuman v. Northtown Ins. Agency Inc., 452 N.W.2d 482, 485 (Minn. App. 1990) (concluding settlement agreement is binding even when one party claimed to misunderstand its effect).
Modich believes the settlement agreement governs a different piece of land even though its clearly states "[t]he parties recognize that the current fence is erected on a line that deviates from" the Four Acres. Modich also erroneously argues that the settlement agreement allows the Stalboergers to use the easement beyond the limited uses provided in the settlement agreement.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: March 2, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Peter M. Reyes, Jr.