No Jurisdiction To Enforce Settlement Asserted As Affirmative Defense But Not In Prayer
01/06/09
Relief granted in a judgment is limited to that sought in the pleadings. To the extent that the judgment goes beyond the pleadings, it is void. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. However, application of this rule is limited to when the evidence bears only on the unpleaded issue and not upon issues already in the case. Issues raised in the motion to enforce settlement agreement did not appear as affirmative relief sought in the reply to the only pending claim before the court. Although defendant asserted the settlement agreement as an affirmative defense, it did not make claim for affirmative relief in the pleading even though it was raised by separate motion. But because there was no claim for affirmative relief in the actual reply to the counter-claim, the judgment of the trial court granting such relief is void. Although a motion for enforcement of a settlement agreement is a correct source for relief in a pending case for which settlement has been reached, it is not where the settlement does not arise from the pending litigation. Residential & Resort Associates, Inc. v. William Wolfe & Chevron/Sierra Land Co., LLC, Docket No. WD 69064 (Mo.Ct.App.W.D. January 6, 2009).
For more general information, visit Business Litigation.
Back to News
At Swanson Midgley, we listen to our clients' needs in order to help them plan for the future and achieve their goals.
