Universal Industrial Management Group LLC v. MIH Steel Products LLC

Filing 19

ORDER granting 14 Universal Industrial's Motion to Enforce the parties' settlement, & awarding a $500.00 attorney's fee for having to seek enforcment. Judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/1/2011. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 3:10-cv-269-DPM

MIHSTEEL
PRODUCTS, LLC

DEFENDANT/COUNTER CLAIMANT

v.
UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

COUNTER DEFENDANT

ORDER
Universal Industrial Management Group and MIH Steel Products
entered into an undisputed settlement agreement, Document No. 14-1, that was
to be consummated by the end of April. MIH has not performed. And
Universal moves to enforce. MIH says that, as Universal knew, MIH had to
dismantle and sell a barge to get the money to satisfy the settlement
agreement, but" these efforts were thwarted by the recent flooding of the
Mississippi River at Memphis, Tennessee." Document No. 16, at 3. MIH asks

for an evidentiary hearing on whether dismantling the barge was a condition
precedent to NIIH's performance.
Because the settlement agreement is not ambiguous, the Court declines
to hold an evidentiary hearing. No" substantial factual dispute concerning
the existence or terms of the settlement agreement[]" appears of record. Gatz
v. Southwest Bank ofOmaha, 836 F.2d 1089, 1095 (8th Cir. 1988). The parties do

not dispute the settlement agreement's existence. Nor do the parties dispute
the terms in their written agreement. MIH, however, seeks to add a term and
Universal resists.
The parties' agreement, which MIH drafted, does not contain any terms
linking MIH's payment to the dismantling of the barge or otherwise
conditioning MIH's payment on that event. The Court must "construe a
contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or
extending its term." Christmas v. Raley, 260 Ark. 150,153,539 S.W.2d 405, 407
(1976). That MIH needed to dismantle and sell the barge to raise the money
to pay Universal does not create a condition precedent absent Universal
agreeing to link payment and the barge's fate. "[A] promisor's financial
inability to pay does not discharge the contractual duty and is therefore not

-2­

a bar to a decree for specific performance." Christy v. Pilkinton, 224 Ark. 407,
407273 S.W.2d 533, 533 (1954).
The Court grants Universal's motion to enforce the parties' settlement,
Document No. 14, and awards Universal a $500.00 attorney's fee for having to

seek enforcement. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-22-308. Judgment will be entered.
So Ordered.

1!!:1:-LetI ~,

D.P. "Marshall Jr. #

United States District Judge

-3­