Cain v. Saunders
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
813 So. 2d 891 (2001)
- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
J. M. Cain, Jr. (plaintiff) had debts that Charles Saunders (defendant) agreed to guarantee and had a dispute relating to those debts that resulted in mediation. At the conclusion of mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement that stated that Saunders would transfer ownership of two life-insurance policies, worth $19,022 and $12,000, to Cain. Subsequently, the parties learned that the life-insurance policies’ combined cash value was less than $10,000. For that reason, Cain refused to perform in accordance with the settlement agreement, and Saunders filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, Cain sought to introduce parol evidence regarding his and Saunders’s understandings of the values of the policies at the time of mediation. Saunders objected, arguing that because the settlement agreement was unambiguous, the parol evidence Cain attempted to introduce was inadmissible. The trial court agreed, finding that the settlement agreement was not ambiguous, and entered a judgment enforcing it. Cain appealed, contending that the settlement agreement should be set aside due to a lack of meeting of the minds and mutual mistake as to the value of the life-insurance policies.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
Dissent (Murdock, J.)
Dissent (Yates, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
