Brooks v. Rosebar

210 A.3d 747

David BROOKS, Appellant,

v.Michael ROSEBAR, et al., Appellees.

No. 16-CV-1101

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Submitted September 19, 2017

Decided June 27, 2019

David Brooks, pro se, was on the brief.

Wendell Robinson was on the brief for appellees.

Before Glickman, Beckwith, and Easterly, Associate Judges.

Glickman, Associate Judge:

Appellant David Brooks sued appellees Michael Rosebar and Erin Rosebar for defamation in 2014 based on reviews they allegedly wrote online about his security camera business. The trial court entered a default against Ms. Rosebar as a sanction for violating court orders in the discovery process, and the case against Mr. Rosebar proceeded. During a September 2016 court hearing, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Rosebar's counsel orally agreed to settle the case, but Mr. Brooks, proceeding pro se , made conflicting statements about whether he intended for the settlement to cover his claims against both Mr. and Ms. Rosebar. In a subsequent letter to the judge, Mr. Brooks alleged that he clarified that he had never intended to settle his claim against Ms. Rosebar, against whom he (mistakenly) believed he had obtained a default judgment . The court found, however, that Mr. Brooks had agreed to settle his claims against both of the Rosebars and dismissed the case with prejudice. In this appeal, Mr. Brooks asserts that the court violated his due process rights in so dismissing his case, in part because there was no "meeting of the minds" between the parties as to material terms of the proposed settlement. We agree that, on the record before us, there is insufficient evidence of a meeting of the minds. We therefore vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

I.

The case before us began on December 18, 2014, when Mr. Brooks filed a defamation complaint against Michael and Erin Rosebar.¹ However, to understand the issues in the case, we must go back further—to 2007. That year, Mr. Brooks loaned the Rosebars $30,000, secured with a promissory note and a rental stream as collateral. The Rosebars never repaid the loan, and Mr. Brooks eventually won a judgment in Superior Court entitling him to the $30,000 plus interest.² Mr. Brooks spent years attempting unsuccessfully to collect on the judgment, during which time Mr. Rosebar filed numerous civil complaints against him, also unsuccessfully. On December 3, 2013, the court ordered that the civil clerk no longer accept claims by Mr. Rosebar against Mr. Brooks without leave of the court because those claims appeared to be "an attempt to use judicial process to bar Mr. Brooks from recovering a debt to which this Court has already determined that he is legally entitled."

Later that December, negative reviews of Mr. Brooks's security camera business, which had been operational for eight years, were posted online. These reviews alleged that Mr. Brooks "has stolen money from my family[,]" "does not hold ... proper [business] license[s,]" is "using this legitimate business as a front for illegal, commercial, and personal loan sharking and predatory lending[,]" "is a criminal" and has been "taking pictures off the internet social media websites of your children." Mr. Brooks claims that after the reviews were posted, he received no new referrals from the Internet and his business closed within one year. In December of 2014, Mr. Brooks, believing that the Rosebars had posted the negative reviews, sued the Rosebars for defamation, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. He also requested as relief that the court "declar[e] the [r]eviews false and defamatory ...."

In connection with this case, Mr. Brooks attempted to depose Ms. Rosebar multiple times, but she either did not show up to or refused to answer questions at the scheduled depositions, notwithstanding court orders to comply. As a result, the court entered a default against Ms. Rosebar on May 19, 2016. Mr. Brooks did not move to have a default judgment entered against Ms. Rosebar, and no further actions were pursued as to that default.

On September 2, 2016, Mr. Brooks and the attorney Wendell Robinson, who had previously represented both Rosebars,³ appeared in court for a motions date that the court had set sua sponte . Neither of the Rosebars appeared. When the court inquired as to whom Mr. Robinson represented, he stated, "I'm representing only Mr. Rosebar because you've already entered a judgment, a default against his wife." In reality, no judgment had been entered against Ms. Rosebar. The court, however, did not clarify the status of the case against Ms. Rosebar.

After the parties and the court addressed two unsuccessful motions by Mr. Brooks, the court asked, "Mr. Brooks, you already have sixteen judgments against Mr. Rosebar?" and Mr. Brooks responded, "[y]es. I've, I offered to settle for $800. They said no." The court asked, "[i]f you walk away and agree not to sue him for five years, wouldn't he and his wife agree not to sue you for five years?" Mr. Robinson responded, "I certainly would recommend it."

Mr. Robinson then stated that he "would have given 800 bucks to get it over with." Mr. Brooks accepted the offer, saying, "[f]ine, fine.... Fine, I accept." Mr. Robinson said, "I'll give him a check. I'll write him a check." At that point, the court told the parties to "make sure you guys get it in writing."

We quote the exchange that followed in detail because it provides important context for assessing the question of whether the parties entered into a valid, enforceable settlement agreement:

MR. ROBINSON: Well, wait a minute, can we put it on the record right now, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Okay, what's the offer?

MR. BROOKS: $800.

MR. ROBINSON: I will write a check for you for $800 ... and that will dismiss this case against both Rosebars. Is that correct?

MR. BROOKS: Yes.

MR. ROBINSON: Thank you. And, and that means, Your Honor, that your judgment - -

THE COURT: Okay, next - -

MR. ROBINSON: - - will be set aside?

MR. BROOKS: No. It would dismiss the matters in dispute now.

THE COURT: Well, it's only a default. It's not a judgment.

MR. ROBINSON: I understand.

THE COURT: It hasn't - - the judgment.

MR. ROBINSON: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay, 10 o'clock next Friday I want you both to be here to make sure it was done and the case is dismissed.

The court then told Mr. Robinson that he should bring a cashier's check to the next hearing and concluded the proceeding.

Prior to the next hearing, Mr. Brooks sent a letter ex parte to the court. The letter was never entered into the record. Nonetheless, the court referenced the letter at the next hearing. The court stated that Mr. Brooks's letter admitted that he had initially agreed to settle the case against Ms. Rosebar as well as Mr. Rosebar and that he had "made a mistake."⁴ The court told Mr. Brooks, "you have to live with your mistake ... [because] ignorance of the law is no excuse to repudiate your agreement."

The court also discussed the previous hearing, saying, "Mr. Brooks, we have the record. You said, I will accept; and Mr. Robinson said, we'll write the check, dismiss this case against both Rosebars, yes ... and you agreed to that ... that was our agreement, that everything would go away." Mr. Brooks asked, "[i]sn't the case against [Ms. Rosebar] over though?" The court responded:

No. You got a default; so, that means that she couldn't put on any evidence and you still have to get a judgment. You would still have to have like a, a proof hearing.... [Y]our agreement was, on the record, against both of them, and, and I don't understand what you think you achieve by proceeding ....

Mr. Brooks continued to argue that he had never intended to settle the case against Ms. Rosebar. He told the court, "I didn't understand what you ... were talking about" at the September 2 hearing. But the court found that Mr. Brooks had already "agreed to" settling his claims against both Rosebars at the previous hearing. The court announced that it was "enforc[ing] the agreement" and dismissing the case with prejudice. Mr. Brooks refused to accept the cashier's check proffered by Mr. Robinson because it "d[id] not represent what [he] believe[d] to be the agreement." Mr. Brooks added that it was reasonable "for a nonattorney not to know the difference between a default entry and a default judgment entry" and, therefore, to have been confused about which claims were still live.

Notwithstanding Mr. Brooks's rejection of the settlement check, the court maintained that "the case [wa]s still dismissed because [Mr. Brooks was] not complying with the settlement agreement." The court told Mr. Brooks, "to say you're a nonattorney is a misnomer because you've spent more time in court in the last five years than most [District of Columbia] Bar[red] attorneys, and certainly any of them at the big downtown law firms. So, that's it." The court dismissed the case that day without issuing an opinion. Mr. Brooks moved to alter the judgment but the court denied the motion "because [Mr. Brooks] entered into an oral settlement agreement in open [c]ourt. Several days later, he had buyer's remorse.... Accordingly, once [Mr. Robinson] tendered the settlement check, the [c]ourt dismissed the case as settled, and so it is."

II.

The outcome of this appeal rests on whether the trial court properly found that the parties had entered into a valid, enforceable settlement agreement. We review this question de novo .⁵ "As a general rule, the validity of a settlement agreement is determined according to general principles of contract law."⁶ "For there to be an enforceable contract, there must be mutual assent of each party to all the essential terms of the contract."⁷ "This mutuality of assent is often referred to as a ‘meeting of the minds.’ "⁸ To assess whether there was such a "meeting of the minds," we consider whether the parties' objective acts manifested agreement as to each material aspect of the settlement agreement.⁹ If the parties "fail[ ] to agree on or even discuss an essential term" of a purported...