In re Seminole Walls & Ceilings Corp.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida
366 B.R. 206 (2007)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Seminole Walls & Ceilings Corporation (Seminole) (defendant) filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code. PITA Corporation (PITA) was a subsidiary of Seminole that had purchased a collection of photographs from Joseph Jasgur (plaintiff). During the bankruptcy proceedings, Jasgur disputed that the photographs were owned by PITA. Seminole’s bankruptcy trustee entered into a settlement agreement with Jasgur in January 2005 to settle the dispute. The agreement was amended by Jasgur and the trustee in March 2005. Jasgur was over 85 years old when the agreement was signed, had a mini-stroke around the time of signing the agreement, and was subsequently diagnosed with serious medical conditions. Jasgur was also declared mentally incompetent on August 10, 2005. However, Jasgur was represented by competent counsel who negotiated the settlement agreement. The agreement was heavily negotiated, and the attorneys for both parties believed that Jasgur supported the agreement. Jasgur’s acquaintance, Tom Endre, assisted Jasgur during the period when the agreements were signed. Endre testified that Jasgur understood he was signing a legal compromise. Additionally, Jasgur signed the agreement and the amendment in front of notaries. Neither the notaries nor Endre expressed any concern that Jasgur appeared confused or was acting oddly. Jasgur asserted that the settlement agreement and amendment were not enforceable because he was mentally incompetent at the time of entering into the agreement and amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jennemann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.