Kuperus v. Willson
v.
Bonita K. Willson, individually,
and as the Personal Representative
of the Estate of Daniel Kent
Willson, Deceased, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
| Appellant: | Fleck Law Office | |
| Appellee: | Coles Law Firm, PC |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
[1] The primary question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding Kuperus waived her right to recover under the terms of the settlement agreement by her acceptance of a $3,000 payment, when at the time of presentment of the payment more than $14,000 was owed to her under the terms of the agreement and the payment was presented without any conditions. In resolving this question In resolving this question Kuperus raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court's finding that the settlement agreement was only presented to the trial court on August 16, 2004, after Kuperus' receipt of the $3,000 payment on August 11, 2004, is supported by the undisputed facts and inferences that may be drawn from those facts?
2. Whether the settlement agreement is unambiguous regarding the rights and obligations of the parties that existed upon Willson's failure to make a $3,000 payment by the August 9, 2004, deadline; and
a. If this Court determines the settlement agreement is unambiguous, whether the trial court's determination Kuperus waived her rights under the agreement by accepting a $3,000 payment after the deadline is contrary to the law?
b. If this Court determines the settlement agreement is ambiguous, whether the trial court erred by making its determination without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the factual issues raised by the ambiguity?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Did the trial Court abuse its discretion in dismissing the proceedings before the trial Court based upon the stipulation of the parties to the action?
Add Docket 20050114 RSS