Orlando Mediator's 400th Post! Standard of Review for Settlements De Novo

A District Court of Appeal (DCA) in Florida has concluded the standard of review of a trial court’s decision under section 44.405(4)(a)5. of the Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act, regarding whether a confidentiality or privilege attaches to a mediation communication “[o]ffered for the limited purpose of establishing or refuting legally recognized grounds for voiding or reforming a settlement agreement reached during a mediation,” is de novo. In the recent decision of Brickell Financial Services - Motor Club, Inc. v. Road Transportation, LLC, on remand the trial court was instructed by the Fourth DCA to weigh the settlement accounting, along with the parties’ mediation communications, and any other admissible evidence, in determining whether a meeting of the minds occurred regarding the dollar amount to which the term “Settlement Sum” referred and, if so, what that amount was. They cited a prior decision in DR Lakes Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S.A. of West Palm Beach, Inc., 819 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which pre-dated the legislature’s enactment of section 44.405 in 2004, but interpreted section 44.405’s predecessor, section 44.102(3), Florida Statutes (2001). That was after initially stating “all mediation communications shall be confidential,” the legislature created an exception in section 44.405(4)(a)5. for any mediation communication “[o]ffered for the limited purpose of establishing or refuting legally recognized grounds for voiding or reforming a settlement agreement reached during a mediation.” The Fourth DCA reminded parties and the trial court that a party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of showing the opposing party assented to the terms of the agreement. See more here-- https://bit.ly/3eyYP5I

UNCITRAL & International Settlements

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was established by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2205 in 1966 to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of international trade law. Lack of framework for the enforcement of settlement agreements is why international parties are often reluctant to resort to mediation, notwithstanding its effectiveness as a method of ADR. In order to promote mediation and solidify the enforceability of settlement agreements, efforts by UNCITRAL are underway to find a solution. Last summer, during a session of UNCITRAL that took place in New York, a proposal to undertake work on the preparation of a convention on the enforceability of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation/conciliation was put forward to UNCITRAL by the United States. Accordingly, Working Group II (WGII)-- one of six working groups established by UNCITRAL, specifically relating to arbitration and conciliation-- was assigned to perform the substantive preparatory work. This group was requested to consider the proposal and report back to UNCITRAL on the feasibility and possible form of work in that area. During a recent session of UNCITRAL that took place in Vienna, WGII reported to UNCITRAL a summary of its findings, its concerns and recommendations. UNCITRAL approved giving WGII a mandate to work on the topic of enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from international commercial conciliation. Reportedly, the mandate given by UNCITRAL to the WGII is broad enough to include different possible forms of work, namely: (i) a guidance text, (ii) a model legislative provisions, and perhaps most significantly, (iii) a convention. It will be interesting to see what develops as a result of this important work. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1Xbd9no and http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/2Arbitration.html

BP Settlement Won't Be Undone By S. Ct.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari by BP challenging its own 2012 multibillion dollar settlement over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP asserted there was fraud in some settlements, while plaintiffs have already been paid over two billion dollars in such claims. BP sought to reopen the lower court-approved settlement it negotiated that allowed the businesses and families impacted to continue to make claims. BP's attempt to halt payments from a settlement fund to reimburse businesses and individuals for losses following the 2010 accident was previously rejected following arguments that the fund administrator had misinterpreted claims and miscalculated payments-- allegedly amounting to fictitious claims. BP maintains decisions made in claims handling exposed the company to losses never contemplated in the settlement. Initially, it was estimated BP would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve tens of thousands of claims by businesses and individuals covered by the settlement. The company said it couldn't give a reliable estimate for the total value of the deal, but now believes its liability under the business-claims settlement will exceed $9.7 billion. It is very difficult to reopen a settlement of this type at the appellate level because of extensive negotiation and ultimate approval by BP and its legal team. See new story here-- http://buswk.co/1wXIVJK and ruling here-- http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120814zor_f2bh.pdf

Mediator to Oversee Bank of America Settlement

A law professor and mediator will oversee billions in consumer relief for struggling borrowers as part of the settlement by Bank of America with the federal government. Veteran dispute resolver, Eric Green, will give or withhold credit on mortgage modifications and home loans for low income borrowers. Green served as mediator on various Bank of America cases. In 2011, a federal judge approved a $410 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving some 13 million customers affected by debit card overdrafts. That suit claimed the bank processed its debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar amounts in order to maximize fees customers paid. That settlement sparked criticism because it gave some customers only a fraction of what they paid. Of this new record $16.65 billion settlement, $9.65 billion will be in cash payments to various federal agencies and six states, with the rest in consumer aid. The Department of Justice is restricted from overseeing Green, who will provide quarterly reports. Bank of America has until summer 2018, to provide the relief. Interestingly, Green did not play a role in the terms or in mediating the settlement. If the mediator determines Bank of America has not complied by the deadline, the bank would be required to make cash payments equal to its shortfall. That money would go to organizations that provide housing counseling and foreclosure prevention. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1smjUBu and http://bit.ly/1qdZJam

Mediated Settlement Agreement Enforced Despite Second Thoughts

When a settlement is reached, parties typically sign a binding settlement agreement before they leave-- often to prevent buyer's remorse. At the conclusion of a long mediation, litigants are sometimes physically and emotionally exhausted. Recently in Florida, a trial court let one party out of a mediated settlement agreement after she claimed coercion. In that case, the mediator allegedly denied her request to take the agreement home over the weekend. The lower court judge believed a request for additional time to review the document was warranted, due to fatigue from the extensive negotiation. After reflecting upon the settlement terms, the litigant apparently requested the agreement be rescinded, instructing her attorney to file a Motion to Vacate. When her attorney suggested he could not file such a motion, she then filed pro se. The trial court erroneously concluded she did not freely, knowingly and intelligently enter into the agreement. The district court of appeal, upon reversing, found the record devoid of evidence that the agreement was signed as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or overreaching, and ordered the settlement agreement to be enforced. To void the agreement, the presence of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or overreaching is needed. Fatigue, distress, and second thoughts are not enough. The court reasoned though appellee may have been fatigued and distressed-- and later suffered second thoughts-- without more, these facts do not provide grounds for setting aside an otherwise valid agreement. See First DCA Opinion Case No. 1D13-1546 http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/12-10-2013/13-1546.pdf