Stuhlmacher et al v. Home Depot USA Inc The et al

Filing 118

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 115 MOTION for Settlement Enforcement by Plaintiff Kelly Stuhlmacher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 12/29/16. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
KURT STUHLMACHER and
KELLY STUHLMACHER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and
TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) Cause No. 2:10-cv-467
)
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Enforce Settlement [DE 115] filed by the
plaintiff, Kelly Stuhlmacher, on November 21, 2016. For the following reasons, the motion is
DENIED.
Background
The plaintiffs, Kurt and Kelly Stuhlmacher, brought a product liability action against the
defendants, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Tricam Industries, Inc., in Lake County Superior
Court. On November 24, 2010, the defendants removed the case to this court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. After the plaintiffs presented evidence, a directed verdict was entered for
the defendants. Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed the decision and remanded it for trial.
The parties began engaging in settlement discussions in January of 2015. On May 7,
2015, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendants’ counsel an email agreeing to settle the case for
$50,000.00. Defendants’ counsel sent plaintiffs’ counsel the Release and Settlement of Claim
and stated that the check would be mailed upon receipt of the signed release. The plaintiffs filed

a Stipulation of Dismissal, which this court granted and dismissed the case with prejudice. The
court retained jurisdiction for the purpose of the execution of settlement documents and
settlement enforcement.
On November 17, 2014, Kurt was charged, and has since been convicted, with attempted
murder in the Jasper County Superior Court. Counsel for the plaintiffs advised defendants’
counsel that the Release would take time to get signed because Kurt and Kelly were involved in
divorce proceedings and Kurt was being difficult and uncooperative. During the divorce
proceedings, an order granting Kelly’s Emergency Motion to Direct Execution of Settlement was
filed in the Jasper Circuit Court. Pursuant to the court order, the Release was signed by Kelly
and “Kurt Stuhlmacher by Wayne Simmons, Wayne Simmons as Commissioner.” Kurt filed a
Motion to Correct Errors arguing that he was not brought from the Jasper County Jail to attend
the hearing on the motion and that it was within his rights to decide whether to enter into the
settlement. On June 17, 2015, the court granted the Motion to Correct Errors. In July of 2015,
the firm Lucas, Holcomb, & Medrea, who represented Kurt and Kelly in this matter, filed a
breach of contract action against them in Lake County Superior Court and were granted default
judgment in the sum of $82,012.12.
On March 17, 2016, a Property Settlement Agreement was entered in the plaintiffs’
divorce proceeding. The agreement states:
The Husband is hereby awarded his interest in the pending lawsuit wherein
the Husband is the plaintiff, which arose out of personal injuries he
received, now pending in the Northern District of Indiana, and the Husband
shall hold the Wife harmless from any and all debt, including the judgment
entered in favor of the Husband’s previous counsel and against the Husband
and Wife, which arose out of said litigation, and hold the Wife harmless
from such debts, costs, expenses, and judgments.

2

James L. Clement, Jr., who previously represented the plaintiffs, filed the Motion to
Enforce the Settlement [DE 115] on behalf of Kelly Stuhlmacher. Kelly has requested the court
to order the payment of the settlement proceeds to her with or without a fully executed Release
and Settlement of Claim or appoint a Commissioner to execute the Release on behalf of Kurt.
The defendants filed a Response in Opposition [DE 117].
Discussion
The court had jurisdiction over the underlying suit, but jurisdiction does not extend
automatically to the enforcement of a settlement agreement. “The Supreme Court has stated that
the enforcement of a settlement agreement ‘requires its own basis for jurisdiction,’ and that it is
not simply a continuation or renewal of the original (dismissed) suit.” Pollack v. Rosalind
Franklin University, 2006 WL 3783418, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1676, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994)). There must be a
deliberate retention of jurisdiction. McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1189-1190 (7th Cir.
1985). To accomplish this, the court specifically must state its intent to retain jurisdiction in its
order dismissing the case or incorporate the terms of the dismissal in its order, as the court has
done in this matter. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378, 114 S.Ct. at 1675-1676.
A settlement agreement of federal claims is enforceable “just like any other contract.”
See Dillard v. Starcon Int’l, Inc., 483 F.3d 502, 506 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lynch, Inc. v.
SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002)); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 380–82, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). However,
state law governs whether the parties made a contract, so Indiana law applies here. Dillard, 483
F.3d at 506. Under Indiana law, the elements of a binding contract include an offer, acceptance
of the offer, consideration, and meeting of the minds between the parties. See Bennett v.

3

Broderick, 858 N.E.2d 1044, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). A meeting of the minds of the
contracting parties, having the same intent, is essential to the formation of a contract.
Zimmerman v. McColley, 826 N.E.2d 71, 77 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc.,
725 N.E.2d 880, 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The intent relevant in contract matters is not the
parties' subjective intents but their outward manifestation of it. Zimmerman, 826 N.E.2d at 77;
Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. Blumenfeld, 745 N.E.2d 268, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Furthermore, the party seeking to enforce a contract bears the burden of proof to establish its
existence. First Nat’l Bank of Logansport v. Logan Mfg. Co., Inc., 577 N.E.2d 949, 953 (Ind.
1991).
On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendants’ counsel an email accepting the
defendants’ offer of $50,000.00 to settle the matter. However, the defendants have argued that
the settlement agreement is not enforceable. First, the defendants contend that Kurt’s failure to
sign the release indicated that he rejected the offer. Defendants’ counsel represents that
plaintiffs’ counsel was aware that payment was conditioned on both Kelly and Kurt signing the
Release. Also, the defendants contend that plaintiffs’ counsel may not have had authority to
settle the dispute. An attorney's authority to agree to an out-of-court settlement will not be
presumed, and the burden of proof rests on the party alleging authority to show that fact.
Magallanes v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 535 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). Kurt’s refusal to
sign the Release, the Motion to Correct Errors, and the Property Settlement Agreement suggest
that he did not give counsel the authority to settle the dispute.
The defendants also make the argument that if a contract was entered into, Kurt was the
first to breach by not signing the Release and thus cannot sue to enforce it. If a party breaches
the contract, that party may not maintain an action against the other party to enforce the contract.

4

See Harold McComb & Son, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 892 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2008).
The defendants contend that the Motion to Enforce Settlement [DE 115] was filed on
Kelly’s behalf. Yet, Kelly lacks standing to enforce the agreement after she renounced her
interest in the outcome of this matter by virtue of the Property Settlement Agreement and now
cannot move to enforce the settlement. When dissolving a marriage, the parties are free to draft
their own settlement agreement. White v. White, 819 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). When
interpreting these agreements, the general rules applicable to the construction of contracts must
be applied. Shorter v. Shorter, 851 N.E.2d 378, 382–83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Clear and
unambiguous terms in the contract are deemed conclusive. Shorter, 851 N.E.2d at 383.
The language included in the Property Settlement Agreement was unambiguous, and the
intent of the parties was clear from the written contract. When the contract terms are clear and
unambiguous, the terms are conclusive, and the court does not construe the contract or look to
extrinsic evidence, but will apply the contractual provisions. Stenger v. LLC Corp., 819 N.E.2d
480, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The provision at issue is:
The Husband is hereby awarded his interest in the pending lawsuit wherein
the Husband is the plaintiff, which arose out of personal injuries he
received, now pending in the Northern District of Indiana, and the Husband
shall hold the Wife harmless from any and all debt, including the judgment
entered in favor of the Husband’s previous counsel and against the Husband
and Wife, which arose out of said litigation, and hold the Wife harmless
from such debts, costs, expenses, and judgments.
Accordingly, Kelly has renounced any interest in this matter and lacks standing to enforce the
settlement. The Property Agreement was a knowing and voluntary waiver of her right to the
settlement proceeds, and the court is bound by the terms of the agreement signed by the parties.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Enforce Settlement [DE 115] is DENIED.

5

ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2016.
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge

6