Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goudelock v. McLemore

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Western Division

December 6, 2013

ROBERT GOUDELOCK, PLAINTIFF
v.
NINA ELISE MCLEMORE, INDIVIDUALLY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARGARET POPE MCLEMORE 1998 REVOCABLE TRUST AND OF THE BRYAN SIMMONS MCLEMORE 1998 REVOCABLE TRUST, AND AS EXECUTRIX UNDER THE WILLS OF MARGARET POPE MCLEMORE AND BRYAN SIMMONS MCLEMORE, DEFENDANT

Decided December 5, 2013.

For Robert Goudelock, Plaintiff: Joyce M. Freeland, Thomas H. Freeland, IV, LEAD ATTORNEYS, FREELAND & FREELAND, Oxford, MS.

For Nina Elise McLemore, Individually, as Trustee of the Margaret Pope McLemore 1998 Revocable Trust and of the Bryan Simmons McLemore 1998 Revocable Trust, and as Executrix under the Wills of Margaret Pope McLemore and Bryan Simmons McLemore, Defendant: John G. Wheeler, Michael D. Ferris, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS, Tupelo, MS; Margaret Sams Gratz, LEAD ATTORNEY, MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS - Tupelo, Tupelo, MS.

OPINION

Page 817

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE, ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, REMOVE TRUSTEE AND APPOINT SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE

MICHAEL P. MILLS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Before the court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case, Enforce Settlement, Remove Trustee, and Appoint Successor Trustee. Docket 46. The court reviewed the motion and response (Docket 47), and ordered the parties to file briefs advising the court why the Motion to Reopen should not be denied for lack of jurisdiction. After carefully considering the parties' responses to the Order to Show Cause, as well as the supporting and opposing authority, the court finds that the motion should be DENIED.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The original complaint in this case was filed in March of 2007. After several years of negotiations and failed mediation efforts, the parties reached a settlement concerning the distribution of trust assets. The Settlement Agreement established that a real estate trustee would be engaged to make recommendations concerning the equitable distribution of real estate assets among the five beneficiaries. The beneficiaries all agreed to abide by the recommendations of Nina Tollison, Esq., the Real Estate Trustee. On April 6, 2010, an " Agreed Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice" was entered relinquishing the court's jurisdiction to handle any further matters associated with the case. Docket 45.

II. Analysis

Both parties contend that Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), grants the court the power to enforce the settlement agreement after the case has been dismissed with prejudice. Kokkonen held that a federal district court has the power to enforce a settlement in a case that has been dismissed in three situations. First, a court may reopen a case to enforce the settlement agreement when the terms of the settlement agreement are incorporated into the order of dismissal. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. Because the Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered in this case did not incorporate any of the Settlement Agreement's language, this exception does not apply.

A court may also reopen a case to enforce a settlement agreement if the order of dismissal contains language expressly retaining jurisdiction over the enforcement of the settlement agreement. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382. Again, because the Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice -- which was submitted by the parties themselves -- includes no language retaining jurisdiction over settlement enforcement, the second exception does not apply.

The final exception allows federal district courts to reopen cases to enforce settlement agreements if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction. Both parties contend that it is this third scenario envisioned by Kokkonen that grants this court the power to reopen this case. In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held that if a case does not fit into one of the first two exceptions, " enforcement of the settlement ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.