U.S. District Court
Where an appeal has been filed challenging a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement, the appeal should be dismissed because the bankruptcy judge correctly determined that the parties came to a meeting of the minds as to the essential material terms of the agreement.
“This bankruptcy appeal arises from an unsuccessful attempt to unwind a settlement agreement between the Appellant John R. Wade, III (‘Wade’) and the Appellee Craig R. Jalbert, Trustee of The Triwire Engineering Solutions, Inc. Creditor Trust (the ‘Trustee’). For the reasons stated below, the Bankruptcy Court’s thoughtful December 29, 2023 Order, Doc. No. 494 (as amended by its Order on January 12, 2024, Doc. No. 497) (Panos, Bankr. J.) (the ‘Enforcement Order’), summarily enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement, is affirmed. Its subsequent February 20, 2024 Order, Doc. 520, and February 20, 2024 Order, Doc. No. 522, are therefore also each affirmed, substantially for the reasons set forth in the Trustee’s brief, where the appeal relies solely upon the enforceability of the Enforcement Order. … The appeal is therefore dismissed, with costs assessed against Wade. …
“The Bankruptcy Court’s findings and rulings were within the appropriate legal standards. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy’s Court’s Enforcement Order is affirmed. After careful review of the record, the Bankruptcy Court’s Order, and the parties’ submissions, the Court rules that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact do not constitute clear error. Quite the opposite: the evidence fully supports that Wade’s counsel and the Trustee’s counsel were each authorized to settle the matter, and through their actions came to a meeting of the minds and bound their respective clients to the material terms of the settlement agreement. Indeed, while Wade in response to the Enforcement Order claimed that his counsel was not authorized in his motion for reconsideration, … none of his counsel have submitted evidence that corroborated this statement or countered the Trustee’s evidence. In fact, tellingly, none of Wade’s former counsel submitted any evidence at all. It is apparent that the Bankruptcy Court credited the evidence submitted by the Trustee in its Enforcement Order, as was its prerogative as the finder of fact. Likewise, the Bankruptcy Court apparently did not credit Wade’s self-serving affidavit on reconsideration inasmuch as the motion was denied. …
“The Bankruptcy Court correctly determined that the parties came to a meeting of the minds as to the essential material terms of the settlement agreement: the exchange of money for a release. In particular, Wade’s counsel, through his actions and words, bound Wade to a settlement agreement comprising payment of $1,500,000 in exchange for mutual releases. To be sure, timing certainly can be a material term; however, the Bankruptcy Court found facts on this record that ultimately support a legal conclusion that the timing was not a material term. … As the Bankruptcy Court found and ruled, the parties were still discussing the time and method of payment at the time of the agreement; nevertheless, this was not a material term. … This Court does not detect any clear error with respect to the facts that form the basis of the Bankruptcy Court’s resultant legal analysis that, all of the elements having been met, as matter of law, an enforceable settlement agreement existed, and was summarily enforceable. …
“Wade is bound by the settlement agreement with the Trustee. For the aforementioned reasons, the Bankruptcy Court’s Orders are affirmed. Wade’s appeal is dismissed with costs awarded to the Trustee.”
Wade v. Jalbert (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-171-25) (8 pages) (Young, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-10495-WGY) (March 25, 2025).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.