In this case, the chancery court held that post-mediation correspondence between the attorneys for the parties allegedly memorializing the terms of a verbal settlement reached in mediation constituted confidential mediation communications, not subject to disclosure. Partners Pharmacy Services v. Halbert, Docket No. C-72-09 (Chan. Div., Union County, April 16, 2012)
The parties in this case were involved in a lawsuit. Mediation was held before a retired judge. Defendants alleged that that a verbal settlement agreement was reached, but no formal written settlement agreement was prepared at the mediation. Rather, the parties left the mediator with an understanding that a written agreement would be prepared and executed by the parties after the mediation. Thereafter, emails were exchanged which, defendants contended, evidenced the essential terms of the agreement. Moreover, the mediator confirmed his understanding that the parties had reached a settlement.
Relying upon the post-mediation emails and the mediator’s understanding, defendants filed a motion to enforce the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. In opposition, plaintiff replied that the motion must be denied because, among other things, the emails relied upon by defendants are confidential mediation communications. Defendants responded that confidentiality did not extend to post-mediation communications memorializing the terms of the settlement. Rather, defendants claimed that, because the mediation was completed at the time the emails were sent and the attorneys were merely finalizing the details of the settlement for the purpose of drafting an agreement, the emails are outside the scope of confidentiality afforded to mediation communications. Plaintiff then asserted that the emails submitted by defendant indicated that the mediation had not concluded, and the parties were actually engaged in an exchange of offers and counteroffers.
The court found the dispute forced the court to resolve the conflict between “the public policy favoring settlements and the policy respecting the confidentiality of mediation communication.” In analyzing the case, the chancery court reasoned as follows:
In order to consider defendants’ claim that the case is settled not only would this court have to review the emails presented, additional documents would have to be reviewed. Further, it would be likely that a plenary hearing would be needed to determine if a settlement had been reached. Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super 39 (App. Div. 1985) Such review would improperly intrude into the mediation process.
Concluding that the expectation of privacy in the mediation process must be protected, the court denied defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’ alleged settlement agreement.
The case is annexed here – Partners Pharmacy Services v. Halbert
I believe the chancery court framed the issue correctly. If the policy favoring settlement trumps the policy protecting mediation privilege, then mediation in NJ as a dispute resolution mechanism will shrivel and die. Counsel, the parties, and the mediator MUST deal with these questions up front, in a written agreement to mediate, signed by all, which provides that no settlement, in part or in full, will be reached unless and until a complete and formal written agreement has been approved by the attorneys and executed by the parties. This is permitted under the Uniform Mediation Act, which allows mediation participants to create the rules to which they will be bound.
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media