Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam
Date: 11-27-2024
Case Number: WC-2020-0016
Judge: Unknown
Court: Superior Court, Washington County, Rhode Island
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir
Description:
Warwick, Rhode Island civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a real property dispute.
The parties to this action are co-owners of a piece of real property located at 73 Fire Lane 3 #B, South Kingstown, Rhode Island 02879 (the Property). (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce) 1.) Defendants Charlotte and John are siblings, and Plaintiff is the widow of Defendants' brother, George Merriam (George). Id.
In June 2007, Martha Merriam deeded the Property to her children, John, Charlotte, and George Merriam as tenants in common. Id. When George died in 2013, Plaintiff inherited her husband's interest in the Property and replaced him as the third tenant in common. Id. Since John, Charlotte, and Plaintiff became tenants in common, management of the Property, allocation of expenses, and communication about the arrangement has become contentious. See Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Ex. A (Pl.'s Obj., Ex. A), ¶¶ 8, 9, 10.
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first Petition for Order of Sale and for the Appointment of a Commissioner. (Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Defendants objected on September 18, 2020. (Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Subsequently, the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the issue without court intervention. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce at 2. The present action arises out of a purported settlement agreement reached by counsel for the parties during those negotiations. Id. at 4.
On November 23, 2020, Defendants offered Plaintiff $315,000 to buy out her one third interest in the Property. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 8.) Defendants allege that this figure was in recognition of the value of the Property, less $75,000 in property expenses undertaken by Defendants. Id. After the initial offer, negotiations commenced between the parties.[2] On September 28, 2021, Plaintiffs counsel proposed a final counteroffer:
"My client will accept $340,000 as a buyout of her interest in the property, on the condition that the next quarterly tax bill, which is due, based on my information, on November 1st, be paid by your clients. Our clients were using a rotation and I believe and [sic] Suzanne was responsible for the next payment. So, my client will accept payment of $340,000 and that your clients are responsible for all future tax bills, including the November 1st quarterly bill." Id. at 2.
On October 3, 2021, Defense counsel responded: "We have an agreement. My clients are in the process of meeting with banks regarding a mortgage/refinance option to free up the cash. I'll be in touch on timeline. In the meantime, do you want us to prepare a settlement agreement?" Id. at 1.[3]
Thereafter, John obtained a mortgage on his personal residence to finance the sale. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. D, ¶ 3.) In addition, John and Charlotte aver that they have paid all taxes and expenses on the property without seeking contribution from Plaintiff since accepting Plaintiff's offer to settle. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff disputes Defendants' assertion that they alone have made all tax payments since October 2021. (Pl.'s Response Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. in Supp. Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A (Pl.'s Response, Ex. A), ¶ 15.)
In the months after the October 2021 negotiations, counsel for the parties communicated about financing and a timeline to close. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 16.) Plaintiff's counsel followed up regarding a timeline to close on November 29, 2021, id. at 16, and Defendants' counsel expressed optimism that the deal could close within the next month. Id. at 17. On January 26, 2022, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they had received the necessary cash and were prepared to draft the settlement agreement and release those funds. Id. at 18. On February 1, 2022, Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a document titled "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release," id. at 23, to which Plaintiff's counsel responded on February 15, 2022, "my client mailed me original signed copies on Friday. So I should be receiving them any day and I will forward to you."[4] Id. On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel wrote, "call me when you have a minute." Id. at 20. Thereafter, communications between the parties slowed, and on
September 18, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent the following statement: "My client was never in agreement with the previous settlement proposal as I previously communicated this to you. Our plan is to file the Petition for Partition with the Court and expect to do so this week." Id. at 25.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a second Petition for Order of Sale and Appointment of a Commissioner on November 2, 2023, to which Defendants objected on November 24, 2023. See Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner (Pl.'s Nov. 2023 Pet.); Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner. Defendants then filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on July 2, 2024, to which Plaintiff objected on September 23, 2024. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce; Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce (Pl.'s Obj.). Defendants filed a Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on October 31, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a Response Memorandum to the Reply Brief on November 6, 2024. See Defs.' Reply Brief in Supp. of their Mot. to Enforce (Defs.' Reply); Pl.'s Resp. Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. (Pl.'s Response). This Court heard oral arguments on the matter on November 14, 2024. It now renders its decision.
Merriam v. Merriam, C. A. WC-2020-0016 (R.I. Super. Nov 27, 2024)
Outcome:
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
The outcome was: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
Which court heard Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Washington County, Rhode Island, RI. The presiding judge was Unknown.
Who were the attorneys in Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir.
When was Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam decided?
This case was decided on November 27, 2024.
Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir
Description:
Warwick, Rhode Island civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a real property dispute.
The parties to this action are co-owners of a piece of real property located at 73 Fire Lane 3 #B, South Kingstown, Rhode Island 02879 (the Property). (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce) 1.) Defendants Charlotte and John are siblings, and Plaintiff is the widow of Defendants' brother, George Merriam (George). Id.
In June 2007, Martha Merriam deeded the Property to her children, John, Charlotte, and George Merriam as tenants in common. Id. When George died in 2013, Plaintiff inherited her husband's interest in the Property and replaced him as the third tenant in common. Id. Since John, Charlotte, and Plaintiff became tenants in common, management of the Property, allocation of expenses, and communication about the arrangement has become contentious. See Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Ex. A (Pl.'s Obj., Ex. A), ¶¶ 8, 9, 10.
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first Petition for Order of Sale and for the Appointment of a Commissioner. (Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Defendants objected on September 18, 2020. (Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Subsequently, the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the issue without court intervention. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce at 2. The present action arises out of a purported settlement agreement reached by counsel for the parties during those negotiations. Id. at 4.
On November 23, 2020, Defendants offered Plaintiff $315,000 to buy out her one third interest in the Property. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 8.) Defendants allege that this figure was in recognition of the value of the Property, less $75,000 in property expenses undertaken by Defendants. Id. After the initial offer, negotiations commenced between the parties.[2] On September 28, 2021, Plaintiffs counsel proposed a final counteroffer:
"My client will accept $340,000 as a buyout of her interest in the property, on the condition that the next quarterly tax bill, which is due, based on my information, on November 1st, be paid by your clients. Our clients were using a rotation and I believe and [sic] Suzanne was responsible for the next payment. So, my client will accept payment of $340,000 and that your clients are responsible for all future tax bills, including the November 1st quarterly bill." Id. at 2.
On October 3, 2021, Defense counsel responded: "We have an agreement. My clients are in the process of meeting with banks regarding a mortgage/refinance option to free up the cash. I'll be in touch on timeline. In the meantime, do you want us to prepare a settlement agreement?" Id. at 1.[3]
Thereafter, John obtained a mortgage on his personal residence to finance the sale. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. D, ¶ 3.) In addition, John and Charlotte aver that they have paid all taxes and expenses on the property without seeking contribution from Plaintiff since accepting Plaintiff's offer to settle. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff disputes Defendants' assertion that they alone have made all tax payments since October 2021. (Pl.'s Response Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. in Supp. Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A (Pl.'s Response, Ex. A), ¶ 15.)
In the months after the October 2021 negotiations, counsel for the parties communicated about financing and a timeline to close. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 16.) Plaintiff's counsel followed up regarding a timeline to close on November 29, 2021, id. at 16, and Defendants' counsel expressed optimism that the deal could close within the next month. Id. at 17. On January 26, 2022, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they had received the necessary cash and were prepared to draft the settlement agreement and release those funds. Id. at 18. On February 1, 2022, Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a document titled "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release," id. at 23, to which Plaintiff's counsel responded on February 15, 2022, "my client mailed me original signed copies on Friday. So I should be receiving them any day and I will forward to you."[4] Id. On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel wrote, "call me when you have a minute." Id. at 20. Thereafter, communications between the parties slowed, and on
September 18, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent the following statement: "My client was never in agreement with the previous settlement proposal as I previously communicated this to you. Our plan is to file the Petition for Partition with the Court and expect to do so this week." Id. at 25.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a second Petition for Order of Sale and Appointment of a Commissioner on November 2, 2023, to which Defendants objected on November 24, 2023. See Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner (Pl.'s Nov. 2023 Pet.); Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner. Defendants then filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on July 2, 2024, to which Plaintiff objected on September 23, 2024. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce; Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce (Pl.'s Obj.). Defendants filed a Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on October 31, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a Response Memorandum to the Reply Brief on November 6, 2024. See Defs.' Reply Brief in Supp. of their Mot. to Enforce (Defs.' Reply); Pl.'s Resp. Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. (Pl.'s Response). This Court heard oral arguments on the matter on November 14, 2024. It now renders its decision.
Merriam v. Merriam, C. A. WC-2020-0016 (R.I. Super. Nov 27, 2024)
Outcome:
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
The outcome was: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
Which court heard Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Washington County, Rhode Island, RI. The presiding judge was Unknown.
Who were the attorneys in Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir.
When was Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam decided?
This case was decided on November 27, 2024.
Description:
Warwick, Rhode Island civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a real property dispute.
The parties to this action are co-owners of a piece of real property located at 73 Fire Lane 3 #B, South Kingstown, Rhode Island 02879 (the Property). (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce) 1.) Defendants Charlotte and John are siblings, and Plaintiff is the widow of Defendants' brother, George Merriam (George). Id.
In June 2007, Martha Merriam deeded the Property to her children, John, Charlotte, and George Merriam as tenants in common. Id. When George died in 2013, Plaintiff inherited her husband's interest in the Property and replaced him as the third tenant in common. Id. Since John, Charlotte, and Plaintiff became tenants in common, management of the Property, allocation of expenses, and communication about the arrangement has become contentious. See Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Ex. A (Pl.'s Obj., Ex. A), ¶¶ 8, 9, 10.
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first Petition for Order of Sale and for the Appointment of a Commissioner. (Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Defendants objected on September 18, 2020. (Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Subsequently, the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the issue without court intervention. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce at 2. The present action arises out of a purported settlement agreement reached by counsel for the parties during those negotiations. Id. at 4.
On November 23, 2020, Defendants offered Plaintiff $315,000 to buy out her one third interest in the Property. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 8.) Defendants allege that this figure was in recognition of the value of the Property, less $75,000 in property expenses undertaken by Defendants. Id. After the initial offer, negotiations commenced between the parties.[2] On September 28, 2021, Plaintiffs counsel proposed a final counteroffer:
"My client will accept $340,000 as a buyout of her interest in the property, on the condition that the next quarterly tax bill, which is due, based on my information, on November 1st, be paid by your clients. Our clients were using a rotation and I believe and [sic] Suzanne was responsible for the next payment. So, my client will accept payment of $340,000 and that your clients are responsible for all future tax bills, including the November 1st quarterly bill." Id. at 2.
On October 3, 2021, Defense counsel responded: "We have an agreement. My clients are in the process of meeting with banks regarding a mortgage/refinance option to free up the cash. I'll be in touch on timeline. In the meantime, do you want us to prepare a settlement agreement?" Id. at 1.[3]
Thereafter, John obtained a mortgage on his personal residence to finance the sale. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. D, ¶ 3.) In addition, John and Charlotte aver that they have paid all taxes and expenses on the property without seeking contribution from Plaintiff since accepting Plaintiff's offer to settle. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff disputes Defendants' assertion that they alone have made all tax payments since October 2021. (Pl.'s Response Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. in Supp. Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A (Pl.'s Response, Ex. A), ¶ 15.)
In the months after the October 2021 negotiations, counsel for the parties communicated about financing and a timeline to close. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 16.) Plaintiff's counsel followed up regarding a timeline to close on November 29, 2021, id. at 16, and Defendants' counsel expressed optimism that the deal could close within the next month. Id. at 17. On January 26, 2022, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they had received the necessary cash and were prepared to draft the settlement agreement and release those funds. Id. at 18. On February 1, 2022, Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a document titled "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release," id. at 23, to which Plaintiff's counsel responded on February 15, 2022, "my client mailed me original signed copies on Friday. So I should be receiving them any day and I will forward to you."[4] Id. On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel wrote, "call me when you have a minute." Id. at 20. Thereafter, communications between the parties slowed, and on
September 18, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent the following statement: "My client was never in agreement with the previous settlement proposal as I previously communicated this to you. Our plan is to file the Petition for Partition with the Court and expect to do so this week." Id. at 25.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a second Petition for Order of Sale and Appointment of a Commissioner on November 2, 2023, to which Defendants objected on November 24, 2023. See Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner (Pl.'s Nov. 2023 Pet.); Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner. Defendants then filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on July 2, 2024, to which Plaintiff objected on September 23, 2024. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce; Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce (Pl.'s Obj.). Defendants filed a Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on October 31, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a Response Memorandum to the Reply Brief on November 6, 2024. See Defs.' Reply Brief in Supp. of their Mot. to Enforce (Defs.' Reply); Pl.'s Resp. Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. (Pl.'s Response). This Court heard oral arguments on the matter on November 14, 2024. It now renders its decision.
Merriam v. Merriam, C. A. WC-2020-0016 (R.I. Super. Nov 27, 2024)
The parties to this action are co-owners of a piece of real property located at 73 Fire Lane 3 #B, South Kingstown, Rhode Island 02879 (the Property). (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce) 1.) Defendants Charlotte and John are siblings, and Plaintiff is the widow of Defendants' brother, George Merriam (George). Id.
In June 2007, Martha Merriam deeded the Property to her children, John, Charlotte, and George Merriam as tenants in common. Id. When George died in 2013, Plaintiff inherited her husband's interest in the Property and replaced him as the third tenant in common. Id. Since John, Charlotte, and Plaintiff became tenants in common, management of the Property, allocation of expenses, and communication about the arrangement has become contentious. See Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Ex. A (Pl.'s Obj., Ex. A), ¶¶ 8, 9, 10.
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed her first Petition for Order of Sale and for the Appointment of a Commissioner. (Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Defendants objected on September 18, 2020. (Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s First Pet. for Order of Sale.) Subsequently, the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the issue without court intervention. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce at 2. The present action arises out of a purported settlement agreement reached by counsel for the parties during those negotiations. Id. at 4.
On November 23, 2020, Defendants offered Plaintiff $315,000 to buy out her one third interest in the Property. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 8.) Defendants allege that this figure was in recognition of the value of the Property, less $75,000 in property expenses undertaken by Defendants. Id. After the initial offer, negotiations commenced between the parties.[2] On September 28, 2021, Plaintiffs counsel proposed a final counteroffer:
"My client will accept $340,000 as a buyout of her interest in the property, on the condition that the next quarterly tax bill, which is due, based on my information, on November 1st, be paid by your clients. Our clients were using a rotation and I believe and [sic] Suzanne was responsible for the next payment. So, my client will accept payment of $340,000 and that your clients are responsible for all future tax bills, including the November 1st quarterly bill." Id. at 2.
On October 3, 2021, Defense counsel responded: "We have an agreement. My clients are in the process of meeting with banks regarding a mortgage/refinance option to free up the cash. I'll be in touch on timeline. In the meantime, do you want us to prepare a settlement agreement?" Id. at 1.[3]
Thereafter, John obtained a mortgage on his personal residence to finance the sale. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. D, ¶ 3.) In addition, John and Charlotte aver that they have paid all taxes and expenses on the property without seeking contribution from Plaintiff since accepting Plaintiff's offer to settle. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff disputes Defendants' assertion that they alone have made all tax payments since October 2021. (Pl.'s Response Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. in Supp. Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A (Pl.'s Response, Ex. A), ¶ 15.)
In the months after the October 2021 negotiations, counsel for the parties communicated about financing and a timeline to close. (Defs.' Mot. to Enforce, Ex. A, at 16.) Plaintiff's counsel followed up regarding a timeline to close on November 29, 2021, id. at 16, and Defendants' counsel expressed optimism that the deal could close within the next month. Id. at 17. On January 26, 2022, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they had received the necessary cash and were prepared to draft the settlement agreement and release those funds. Id. at 18. On February 1, 2022, Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a document titled "Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release," id. at 23, to which Plaintiff's counsel responded on February 15, 2022, "my client mailed me original signed copies on Friday. So I should be receiving them any day and I will forward to you."[4] Id. On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel wrote, "call me when you have a minute." Id. at 20. Thereafter, communications between the parties slowed, and on
September 18, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent the following statement: "My client was never in agreement with the previous settlement proposal as I previously communicated this to you. Our plan is to file the Petition for Partition with the Court and expect to do so this week." Id. at 25.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a second Petition for Order of Sale and Appointment of a Commissioner on November 2, 2023, to which Defendants objected on November 24, 2023. See Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner (Pl.'s Nov. 2023 Pet.); Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s Pet. for Order of Sale and for Appointment of Commissioner. Defendants then filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on July 2, 2024, to which Plaintiff objected on September 23, 2024. See Defs.' Mot. to Enforce; Pl.'s Obj. to Defs.' Mot. to Enforce (Pl.'s Obj.). Defendants filed a Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement on October 31, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a Response Memorandum to the Reply Brief on November 6, 2024. See Defs.' Reply Brief in Supp. of their Mot. to Enforce (Defs.' Reply); Pl.'s Resp. Mem. to Defs.' Reply Br. (Pl.'s Response). This Court heard oral arguments on the matter on November 14, 2024. It now renders its decision.
Merriam v. Merriam, C. A. WC-2020-0016 (R.I. Super. Nov 27, 2024)
Outcome:
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
The outcome was: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is DENIED.
Which court heard Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Washington County, Rhode Island, RI. The presiding judge was Unknown.
Who were the attorneys in Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Warwick Real Propety Lawyer Dir.
When was Suzaane Merriam v. John C. Merriam and Charlotte Merriam decided?
This case was decided on November 27, 2024.