GILL (SUTEJ), ET AL. VS. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 1, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001126-MR
SUTEJ GILL AND
DEBORAH GILL
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE MARY M. SHAW, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 07-CI-011677
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
FKA WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA;
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT; JAMES D. JONES;
AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC;
AND FIRST BANK, INC., N/K/A CENTRAL
BANK OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, INC.
APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: STUMBO AND THOMPSON, JUDGES; LAMBERT,1 SENIOR
JUDGE.
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.
THOMPSON, JUDGE: Sutej and Deborah Gill, husband and wife, appeal from a
corrected supplemental judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court overruling
their objections and exceptions to a master commissioner’s report. The issue
presented is whether the circuit court properly concluded that the Gills and Central
Bank of Jefferson County (Central Bank) did not reach an enforceable settlement
of their controversy because no evidence existed as to a “meeting of the minds.”
Contrary to the circuit court, we conclude that the undisputed evidence is
conclusive that there was a meeting of the minds and, therefore, reverse.
However, further proceedings are necessary to determine Central Bank’s liability.
In 2007, the Gills filed a foreclosure action seeking a sale of property
located on Fourth Street in Louisville which was owned by James D. Jones.2 In
addition to Jones, the Gills named as defendants, Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government, Republic Bank and Trust Company, Commonwealth of
Kentucky, Washington Mutual Bank, American Tax Funding and Central Bank.
The Gills and Central Bank were mortgage holders: Central Bank held the first
lien position while the Gills held the third lien position.
The Gills allege that during the pendency of the foreclosure action,
they and Central Bank negotiated regarding the Gills’ purchase of Central Bank’s
first lien position. Specifically, the Gills sought Central Bank’s assignment of its
note, mortgage and, ultimately, any judgment that it obtained against Jones. The
2
A foreclosure action was filed by Washington Mutual Bank relating to real property located at
309 Bayly Street, also owned by Jones, in which the Gills were named as defendant lienholders.
Although the actions were consolidated, in this appeal only the Fourth Street property is at issue.
-2-
Gills allege that although no formal agreement was reduced to writing prior to the
entry of a judgment and order of sale on August 20, 2008, they and Central Bank
reached a verbal agreement. Pursuant to the agreement’s terms, Central Bank
agreed to assign the note, mortgage, and judgment against Jones to the Gills. As a
result, the Gills obtained a title examination and a commercial appraisal.
A closing date was scheduled for August 8, 2008. However, the Gills
maintain that the closing did not occur because Central Bank refused to perform.
Consequently, on September 18, 2008, the Gills objected to Central Bank’s
pending motion for supplemental judgment and later filed a cross-claim against
Central Bank seeking specific performance of the settlement agreement.
On February 26, 2009, the Gills’ objections and exceptions to Central
Bank’s motion for supplemental judgment were presented to the master
commissioner. David Mour appeared as counsel for the Gills and Deane Stewart
for Central Bank. A Central Bank officer was also present. Because the colloquy
at the master commissioner’s hearing is pivotal to the question of whether there
was a meeting of the minds, the following portion of the transcript is recited:
SPEAKER: That’s correct. Commissioner, we have reached
what we call stipulation that we would like to put on the record where
we basically settled the issues that are before the Court today.
COMMISSIONER: Excellent.
SPEAKER: And the provision of those are -- and you correct
me, Mr. Mour, if you find anything not what we said -- but Mr. Gill
withdraws his objection to the tendered supplemental judgment of
Central Bank.
-3-
Mr. Gill withdraws all claims against Central Bank in the
action.
COMMISSIONER: He withdraws his objection to your
supplemental judgment. He withdraws any claim that he has against
Central.
SPEAKER: Yes. He has presented, I think, in an amended
pleading -SPEAKER: Cross or counterclaim, one or the other.
SPEAKER: Yeah, cross or counterclaim, claims against the
bank that are being withdrawn.
We have an agreement in principle that we intend to reduce to
writing within the next week or six days, by Wednesday, which would
include the following: The bank would agree to assign the existing
Central Bank judgment and any future supplemental judgment to Mr.
Gill, as well as the underlying note and mortgage.
COMMISSIONER: Who is your judgment against which is
being assigned to Mr. Gill?
SPEAKER: Dan Jones. It is a judgment and order of sale in
this action.
COMMISSIONER: All right.
SPEAKER: Neither Mr. Gill, nor his representatives,
successors or assigns will have access to any bank files or be entitled
to any other of the bank loan documentation.
SPEAKER: Other than obviously the note and mortgage.
SPEAKER: Yeah, note and mortgage.
COMMISSIONER: Probably have the note and mortgage in
the file.
SPEAKER: Mr. Gill nor his successors or assigns,
representatives, they will not seek to set aside the judgment.
COMMISSIONER: Again, referring to the --4-
SPEAKER: Referring to the judgment of Central Bank against
Jones as may be supplemented. We anticipate it being supplemented
for the additional sums that are due.
COMMISSIONER: He hasn’t seen the supplemental judgment,
but despite that he agrees not to seek to set that aside.
SPEAKER: We have tendered it -- (inaudible).
SPEAKER: But he is withdrawing his objection. So he gets
that, as well, in other words, as part of what is going to -- so
enforcement of payment against Jones by Gill would be through
enforcement of the judgment and not through-COMMISSIONER: That you’re assigning to him.
SPEAKER: Yeah, that we’re assigning to him, but not through
some other action on the note and mortgage that are subsumed in the
judgment.
The payment to Central Bank would include all principle on the
note, all interest to date of closing, all costs, and -- which would
include expenses of winterization and maintenance of the property at
an approximate amount of -- whatever the property preservation costs
that are actual disbursed costs from the bank.
SPEAKER: And prior to coming in Michael had indicated
those were approximately $2,000.
SPEAKER: I’m not sure, but it’s in that range.
SPEAKER: I understand.
SPEAKER: And legal fees incurred by the bank in an amount
not to exceed $2,000.
SPEAKER: For me 1,500.
SPEAKER: Let’s say as a max 2,000, and of course actual
costs of this action, court costs.
The closing on the transfer of funds and delivery of the
assignment must occur on or before March 20, 2009.
-5-
In the event that it fails to close by that date due to the fault of
Mr. Gill the bank would be immediately entitled to ask for a sale of
the property under its judgment.
SPEAKER: Shouldn’t that be no fault of Central Bank?
SPEAKER: No fault of Central Bank.
SPEAKER: Could be a fault on (inaudible) your lender.
SPEAKER: That’s true.
SPEAKER: But you’re taking that risk.
SPEAKER: Obviously if it’s on you guys, it’s on your guys. If
it’s on Steve -- you-all can’t control our lender, correct.
SPEAKER: You said by no fault of Mr. Gill. It could not close
and not be Central Bank’s fault.
SPEAKER: That’s fine.
SPEAKER: If it fails to close and it’s not Central Bank’s fault,
then it’s over and we proceed with the sale, but your claims against
the bank are still gone, your objection to the judgment is still gone.
Central Bank is allowed to proceed after March 20.
SPEAKER: And get an order of sale.
SPEAKER: And order of sale.
SPEAKER: We don’t have a sale date.
COMMISSIONER: You don’t have a sale date?
SPEAKER: No, we don’t have a sale date.
COMMISSIONER: There’s not an order of sale already?
SPEAKER: We’re trying to get a supplemental judgment for
taxes and some preservation costs.
-6-
COMMISSIONER: All right. Fine. Everybody in agreement
with that?
I guess I can’t see you down there. You’re representing Jones.
You okay with all -- what’s going on here?
SPEAKER: I don’t think we have a yes or no vote either way.
SPEAKER: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER: No, you probably don’t, but I was just
being polite.
All right. Now, you’re saying a closing must occur between
March -- between now and (inaudible).
SPEAKER: Closing is transfer of funds from Gill to the bank
for the assignment of the documents.
SPEAKER: Not a closing in the traditional sense.
COMMISSIONER: Okay. The deal between Gill and the bank
has to be completed by March 20, and you’re comfortable, Mr. Mour,
that your client can get that done by -- Mr. Gill, you’re comfortable
that you can get this done by March 20?
MR. MOUR: As long as Dean gets me our -- because the bank
is going to need -- his lender is going to need our agreement. And as
long -SPEAKER: I will get that to you by Wednesday, not later.
MR. MOUR: If I have any comments or suggestions then I will
get those back to you by Thursday morning. And then hopefully we
can -- whatever disagreements we have we can work them out by
Friday and have it to his lender, which will be what -- that’s -- the 5th
is Friday.
SPEAKER: We will try to do that before then.
MR. MOUR: That still gives the bank 15 days, but if you can
get it to me before then it would be helpful just to avoid any
controversy down the road.
-7-
COMMISSIONER: Thank you-all very much. I’m simply
going to report to the judge that you have reached an agreement, that
the terms of the agreement and those stipulations have been recited
into the record, and that you anticipate you will have -- are you-all
going to do an agreed order around this?
On March 11, 2009, the master commissioner filed a report stating that the parties
appeared for a hearing on February 26, 2009, and reached a stipulated agreement.
Specifically, the master commissioner stated:
Prior to the hearing, the parties and counsel engaged in
negotiations, and arrived at a stipulated agreement which was then
read into the record, with the Commissioner present. That stipulated
agreement presumably will be reduced to writing by one of the
attorneys, but in any event it is of record on tape in the
Commissioner’s office.
One of the provisions of the stipulated agreement is that the
Court enter the Supplemental Judgment heretofore tendered by
Central Bank. An earlier Judgment and Order of Sale has been signed
and entered by the Court.
Based on the parties’ stipulated agreement, the master commissioner recommended
that the supplemental judgment be entered.
Following the hearing on February 26, 2009, Central Bank forwarded
the Gills a written proposed assignment. Consistent with the stipulated agreement,
Central Bank agreed to assign the Gills its interest in the note, mortgage and
existing judgment. However, the Gills objected to an indemnification clause in the
proposed agreement. As a result, a written settlement agreement was not executed
and the property did not close on March 20, 2009.
Presented with Central Bank’s failure to present a satisfactory written
agreement, the Gills filed objections and exceptions to the master commissioner’s
-8-
report and its recommendation that the supplemental judgment tendered by Central
Bank be signed and entered. The basis for their motion was that they and Central
Bank reached a binding settlement agreement as stipulated at the master
commissioner’s hearing. Central Bank responded that the stipulated agreement
entered into the record was only an “agreement to agree” and, therefore, was not a
binding contract.
After hearing counsel’s respective arguments, the circuit court denied
the Gills’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement and permitted the judicial
sale to proceed. On the corrected and supplemental judgment, the court handwrote, “Gills Objections/Exceptions to Commissioner’s Report of March 11, 2009
Overruled. No meeting of minds found.” The Gills filed a timely notice of appeal.
During the pendency of this appeal, on June 23, 2009, Jones
purchased the property at public auction but, after he defaulted on his contractual
sale obligations, a second sale was scheduled. With their appeal pending, the Gills
filed a motion for emergency relief with this Court seeking to stay the foreclosure
sale. After the motion was denied, the property was auctioned and the Gills
purchased the property. Based on the facts presented, we review the circuit court’s
decision that there was no meeting of the minds between the Gills and Central
Bank.
We review questions of law de novo. Western Kentucky Coca-Cola
Bottling Co., Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 80 S.W.3d 787, 790 (Ky.App. 2001).
However, findings of fact will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due
-9-
regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of
the witnesses.” Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01. The issue
presented is concise: Did the circuit court properly find that the Gills and Central
Bank did not reach a settlement agreement at the February 26, 2009, master
commissioner’s hearing? Because no material issues of fact are presented by
virtue of the parties’ stipulated agreement, our review is de novo.
An agreement to settle legal claims is a contract subject to the rules of
contract interpretation. Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d
381, 384 (Ky.App. 2002). Thus, a settlement agreement that satisfies the
requirements associated with contracts, including an offer and acceptance, full and
complete terms, and consideration is generally enforceable. Id.
Moreover, a verbal settlement agreement is binding: If the parties
agree to a settlement, it is enforceable. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Glass, 996
S.W.2d 437, 445 (Ky. 1997).3
The basis for Central Bank’s argument is that there were unresolved
material terms of the agreement. As authority, it cites Walker v. Keith, 382
S.W.2d 198 (Ky. 1964), where the court stated: “To be enforceable and valid, a
contract to enter into a future covenant must specify all material and essential
terms and leave nothing to be agreed upon as a result of future negotiations.” Id.
at 201 (quoting Johnson v. Lowery, 270 S.W.2d 943, 946 (Ky. 1954)). Consistent
with general contract law, the Court recited that the parties must either agree upon
3
An exception to the general rule is contained in KRS 403.180, pertaining to property
settlement agreements in dissolution of marriage actions. It is irrelevant to our discussion.
-10-
the material terms or supply a “definite method of ascertaining” the terms. Id. at
202. The fallacy in Central Bank’s contention is that the facts and its legal
conclusion are inconsistent.
We begin with the proposition that Kentucky recognizes the amicable
resolution of disputes, including oral settlement agreements. As stated in
Dohrman v. Sullivan, 310 Ky. 463, 467, 220 S.W.2d 973, 975 (1949):
The Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. 1,
sec. 26, thus states the applicable rule: ‘Mutual
manifestations of assent that are in themselves sufficient
to make a contract will not be prevented from so
operating by the mere fact that the parties also manifest
an intention to prepare and adopt a written memorial
thereof; but other facts may show that the manifestations
are merely preliminary expressions.’ To state the rule
less abstractly: Where all the substantial terms of a
contract have been agreed on and there is nothing left for
future settlement, the fact alone that the parties
contemplated execution of a formal instrument as a
convenient memorial or definitive record of the
agreement does not leave the transaction incomplete and
without binding force in the absence of a positive
agreement that it should not be binding until so executed.
12 Am.Jur., Contracts, secs. 23, 25.
Subsequent jurists have emphasized the binding effect of a stipulated verbal
settlement agreement. In Calloway v. Calloway, 707 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Ky.App.
1986), the Court cited with approval the language used in Peirick v. Peirick, 641
S.W.2d 195 (Mo.App. 1982). The Missouri court observed:
In the administration of justice and the prompt
dispatch of business, courts must and do act upon the
statements of counsel and upon the stipulations of parties
to pending causes. Where the parties have voluntarily
entered into a stipulation, which appears fair and
-11-
reasonable for the compromise and settlement of the
issues of a pending cause, and where the stipulation is
spread upon the record with the consent and approval of
the court, as here, the parties are bound thereby and the
court may, thereafter, properly proceed to dispose of the
case upon the basis of the pleadings, the stipulation and
admitted facts.
Id. at 196 (quoting Hansen v. Ryan, 186 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Mo. 1945)).
Central Bank maintains that regardless of the stipulated agreement entered
into at the master commissioner’s hearing, material terms to the agreement
remained to be negotiated. It points out that the Gills refused to sign the written
agreement that contained a third-party indemnification provision.
Central Bank’s position is irreconcilable with the terms agreed to at the
master commissioner’s hearing. There was no discussion regarding any
indemnification of Central Bank. However, the agreement included a material
condition that denied the Gills access to internal bank documents. Thus, the Gills
were denied any knowledge of Central Bank’s acts or omissions during its business
relationship with Jones. If indemnification was a provision contemplated by the
parties but subject to further negotiation, the Gills agreed to potential liability to
Jones without any information regarding its basis or extent. No competent attorney
would recommend that a client enter into such a third-party indemnification
agreement.
The parties’ “minds” agreed to the assignment of the judgment, note and
mortgage to the Gills. All material terms were stipulated including a definite
-12-
closing date and the payment of costs and, therefore, the parties are bound by the
fair and reasonable stipulated terms of their verbal agreement.
After review of the record and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the
circuit court erred: As a matter of law, the parties are bound by the stipulated
agreement recited in the record. Central Bank’s liability, if any, for its failure to
perform the settlement agreement is to be determined by the Jefferson Circuit
Court. Consistent with our directive, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:
David B. Mour
Zachary L. Taylor
Louisville, Kentucky
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANTS:
David B. Mour
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CENTRAL
BANK OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,
LLC:
Eric M. Jensen
M. Deane Stewart
Louisville, Kentucky
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEE:
Eric M. Jensen
Louisville, Kentucky
-13-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.