Powell v. City Of Newton

703 S.E.2d 723 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Powell (P) filed a complaint alleging that Newton's (D) agents had trespassed on his property and wrongfully cut and removed hardwood trees. D had begun the process of constructing a park on land abutting P's property. Shaver Wood Products, Inc. had been hired to clear and harvest timber on the park property and W.K. Dickson Engineering, Inc. to carry out the design, development, and management of the project. D filed a third-party complaint against Shaver and Dickson, seeking indemnification should it be held liable to P. After the jury had begun hearing evidence, D's attorney informed the court after a recess but before the jury returned to the courtroom that the parties had reached a settlement under which P agreed to quitclaim his interest in the disputed land in exchange for $30,000 from the city and $5,000 each from Shaver and Dickson. D's attorney stated that the city council had to bless the deal. The judge questioned the parties over whether that was their deal and all consented in open court, and the judge terminated the trial. The parties electronically exchanged the final agreement and D delivered $40,000 to P’s attorney. P refused to execute the agreement. D motioned the court to require P to meet his obligation. P claimed that the agreement was coerced and that it was also void under the statute of frauds as it was a sale of land that was not in writing and was not signed by the party to be charged. The court found that the agreement was voluntarily agreed to in open court and also confirmed in writing by electronic communication and the monies were delivered. The trial court ordered P to execute the written Settlement Agreement and Release, along with a quitclaim deed, and to deliver those documents to D. P appealed. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The majority invoked judicial estoppel and concluded that the doctrine trumped the statute of frauds because the oral agreement was manifested in open court before the judge. P appealed.