Appeals court revisits enforcement of an aborted settlement agreement

The panel heard argument in a legal‑malpractice/settlement dispute in which appellant Steven Franzosa contends a court order enforcing an aborted settlement was error.

Appellant counsel Mary Ellen Manning argued the district court erred in finding that an agreement existed because the attorney who testified he had settlement authority also admitted he had not shown the draft stipulation to his client and had been waiting to finalize terms until other parties finished revisions. Manning urged that the record lacks the necessary manifestation of present intent by the client and that the purported changes after October 26 were material.

Opposing counsel argued that the email exchange and the trial court’s ruling established an enforceable agreement, that attorney Holzberg testified the stipulation was exactly what his client had wanted and that any ministerial formalities (signatures) did not defeat a meeting of the minds. The panel questioned the parties about the content and timing of emails, whether substitutions were de minimis or substantive and whether subsequent dismissal developments made a difference to contract formation.

The matter was submitted after argument.