In reality, Life does not go according to Hoyle.
We are all quite aware that many lawsuits are settled with a gag order attached, especially when CAI is involved (not in this lawsuit). To my surprise and disbelief, in Arizona, a gag order is not material to an agreement between to parties in a lawsuit.
A recent Arizona appellate decision involved a court ordered settlement conference in which the parties verbally agreed to the terms of the settlement and a written agreement was prepared to be submitted to the court. The homeowners removed the HOA’s version with respect to a gag order, informing the HOA they did not agree to the gag order. The court was informed that the digital recording of the settlement conference was not available for an unknown reason, whereupon the court then ordered litigation and a hearing as to the settlement agreement. H’mmmm!
The trial court held that the HOA’s version was valid, which not surprisingly was appealed. Following Arizona’s precedent, the court would support the trial court’s ruling “if the trial court’s disposition is correct for any reason.” It seems that the judicial system back’s its own kind – judges make no mistakes. The justification for upholding the HOA’s version was found in Rule 80(a) of the rules of civil procedure.
First, the fact that the parties agreed to put the agreement in writing doesn’t count if there is an agreement. Second,
The law “favors enforcement when it is clear that the parties intended themselves to be bound,” and “absent or uncertain terms are not fatal to the enforceability of an otherwise binding contract.
In other words, picky, picky no matter what impact it has on the parties. How can the court hold that an agreement was reached when there are 2 versions and only one party signed? Yes, the judicial system has its flaws! BEWARE!
Source: Robertson v. Sierra Pines, CA-CV 23-0069 (ARIZ. App. Div1 (9-14-2023).
HOA Constitutional Government 