Robertson v. Alling

351 P.3d 352 (2015)

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

Robertson (P) sued neighboring property owners, Alling (D), concerning a water line. The parties attended a mediation but did not reach an agreement. At the end of the mediation, D, represented by attorney Mark Sifferman, made a settlement offer requiring acceptance within forty-eight hours. Hours before the offer expired, Robert Grasso, P's attorney, told Sifferman that P needed more time to respond to the offer because one group member had a family emergency. Grasso proposed that the attorneys discuss the offer the next week. Sifferman did not extend the January 31 deadline, and the offer expired. Sifferman advised his clients of Grasso's request and recommended they 'leave the door open' for settlement. Two of D's members emailed Sifferman on February 4 stating that they and others favored 'removing the settlement offer proposed in the mediation.' Sifferman did not read the email and mistakenly thought all his clients were willing to settle on the terms previously conveyed to P. On February 6, Sifferman sent an attorney at Grasso's firm an email extending a new settlement offer with terms that mirrored the prior offer but would expire at 5:00 p.m. on February 8. Grasso timely accepted the offer via email. Grasso informed the trial court of the settlement and circulated draft settlement documents, Sifferman discovered he lacked the authority to extend the settlement offer. After conferring with his clients, Sifferman made a new settlement offer, that was materially different. P moved to enforce the February 8 settlement. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that Sifferman had actual and apparent authority and that D was equitably estopped from disputing that authority. The court also ruled that Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 80(d) did not apply but, if it did, the emails exchanged between counsel satisfied the rule. The court of appeals reversed. It held that the dispute triggered Rule 80(d). The contract was not in writing meaning 'the requirements of Rule 80(d) were not met, and the agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law.' P appealed.