EDNA MCCLAVE RYDER, APPELLANT,
v.
NELLIE LARSEN MACKENZIE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Edna McClave Ryder, a personal injury plaintiff, appealed a post-judgment order requiring her to proceed with a settlement her counsel had negotiated and approved in court. The trial court found the settlement was fair, voluntary, and in Ryder's best interest, and upheld a lien on the settlement proceeds for attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding the record supported the trial court's findings.
The trial court properly enforced the settlement. The record supported findings that the plaintiff knew of and approved the settlement after the case was called for trial, that the settlement was fair, voluntary, and in her best interest, and that she would have faced substantial costs if a non-suit had been entered instead.
[1] A trial court has the authority to order the disbursement of settlement proceeds and establish attorney's liens on those proceeds.
[2] A settlement announced in open court by counsel for both parties is binding, even if one party later refuses to proceed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Mrs. Edna McClave Ryder knew of and approved of said settlement after this case was called for trial, and that said settlement was fair, voluntary and in the best interest of the clients.”
The trial court's key finding that supported enforcement of the settlement and rejection of the plaintiff's claim that she did not approve it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Ryder's personal injury action was called for trial on April 1, 1969. Unable to proceed, she requested a continuance, which was denied. Her …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
Edna McClave Ryder, who was the plaintiff in the trial court, has appealed a post-judgment order in which the trial court directed the disbursement of the proceeds of the settlement of a personal injury cause. The record reveals that at the time appellant’s action for personal injuries came on for trial she was unable to proceed and requested a continuance. Upon the denial of the continuance the cause was settled and the result announced to the court. Thereupon the court entered an order of dismissal in which the trial court set forth the facts upon which he acted as follows:
“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before me in open Court at 9:30 A.M., on the 1st day of April, 1969, at which time this cause was called for trial. At that time, counsel and their respective clients being present, both counsel jointly announced to the Court that this cause had been amicably settled by and between their respective clients.
“WHEREUPON, counsel for defendant then moved this Honorable Court for the entry of an order herein dismissing this cause with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs, conditioned upon payment by defendant to plantiff of the sum of $1,550.00.”
Thereafter the appellant refused to proceed with the settlement. She discharged her attorney and has proceeded both in the trial court and here without the aid of legal counsel. Appellant’s former attorney petitioned the trial court for an order directing payment of the settlement funds into the registry of the court and to establish a lien thereon for his services. After the taking of extensive testimony the court directed the plaintiff to proceed with the settlement of the cause and established a lien for the attorney’s services upon the proceeds of the settlement.
Appellant’s main contention is that she did not approve the settlement and that she should not be bound by it. She urges that to require her to pay her attorney’s fees and her own costs in the cause renders the settlement improper. Upon these issues the trial judge after the taking of testimony found:
“This Court further finds that this Court denied Plaintiff’s last Motion for Continuance and called this cause to trial after previously continuing it several times; that Plaintiff’s counsel would have been directed by Plaintiff to non-suit this cause after the call for trial had it not been settled, which would have made Mrs. Edna McClave Ryder responsible for substantial costs incurred on the non-suit; that this cause was properly contested on both liability and damages; that Mrs. Edna McClave Ryder knew of and approved of said settlement after this case was called for trial, and that said settlement was fair, voluntary and in the best interest of the clients.”
We have reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s briefs and oral argument. We find that the record supports the conclusions of the trial judge and that error has not been demonstrated.
Accordingly, the orders appealed are affirmed.