Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: May 14, 2010 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of May 14, 2010, the Minnesota appellate courts released opinions on the following topics that may be of interest to our clients:
1.
2.
1. SETTLEMENT - AGREEMENTS DO NOT DISCHARGE JOINT TORTFEASORS
-
A settlement agreement does not release, discharge, or extinguish claims against a joint tortfeasor unless that intent is explicitly set forth in the agreement.
Superior, Inc., an independent dealer of grain-moving equipment manufactured by Sukup Manufacturing Company, sold defective farm machinery to Virgil and Connie Dykes. The Dykes refused to pay Superior’s invoices, and litigation followed. A mediated settlement agreement ended the litigation between the Dykes and Superior. Three years later, the Dykes asserted claims against Sukup.
The district court granted Sukup’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the prior settlement agreement between the Dykes and Superior effectively released Sukup from liability because it did not expressly preserve claims against joint tortfeasors. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that “a settlement agreement that releases one or more joint tortfeasors does not release other tortfeasors from joint and several liability unless the parties to the settlement agreement manifested such an intent, or if the injured party received full compensation for the damages sought against the other tortfeasors.” The Supreme Court affirmed that holding, and also concluded that the settlement agreement at issue did not manifest the requisite intent to release Sukup.
Dykes v. Sukup Mfg. Co., --- N.W.2d ---, A08-583 (Minn. 5/13/10).
2. ATTORNEY FEES - NO RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
-
The Minnesota Constitution does not provide a right to a jury trial when recovery of attorney fees under a contract is at issue.
Haugen Nutrition and Equipment (HNE) defaulted on a contract for deed with United Prairie Bank – Mt. Lake (UPB). During subsequent litigation, UPB was awarded, among other things, $286,711.58 in reasonable attorney fees. HNE moved for a new trial, arguing the trial court erred when it failed to grant a jury trial on the attorney fee issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a claim for attorney fees under a contract is an equitable issue best left to the courts. Further, since there was no right to attorney fees at common law (but only, in some circumstances, a contractual right), the Minnesota Constitution did not guarantee a right to a jury trial.
The Court also concluded the trial court’s use of Twin Cities billing rates to determine the reasonableness of attorney fees awards—as opposed to rates in Cottonwood County, where both parties conducted business—was not an abuse of discretion.
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., LLC, --- N.W.2d ---, A09-607 (Minn. Ct. App. 5/11/10).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, J.S. Andresen, M. Covin, S. Gustad, B. Sande, C. Hund, S. Sitek, T. Quick, D. Camarotto, K. Burke, J. Marquet, D. Turner, L. Pugh, M. Bradford, P. Semrow, and S. Pearson |
Writer this Week: |
Pamela D. Steinle, Law Clerk |