§2A.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§2A.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1) Applicability of CR 2A

CR 2A only applies to agreements (1) that are made by parties or their counsel "in respect to the proceedings in a cause" and (2) the"purport" of which is disputed. When those elements are not met, CR 2A precludes enforcement of a disputed agreement that is not made in writing or in open court on the record, or entered in the minutes. In re Marriage of Ferree, 71 Wn.App. 35, 39-40, 856 P.2d 706 (1993). CR 2A is not applicable to disputes over an attorney's authority to enter into a stipulation, as distinguished from disputes over the substance of a stipulation. Graves v. P.J. Taggares Co., 94 Wn.2d 298, 303-05, 616 P.2d 1223 (1980).

A son's oral testimony on the record in a guardianship hearing, that he was willing to quitclaim his interest in certain real property to his mother or an appointed guardian, was not binding under CR 2Aagainst the son in a subsequent proceeding, because the ownership of such real property was not at issue in the guardianship hearing. In re Guardianship of Bellanich, 43 Wn.App. 345, 348, 717 P.2d 307 (1986), overruled on other grounds by Brouillet v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 793-94, 791 P.2d 526 (1990).

(2) Burden of proof

Aparty seeking to establish a stipulation has the burden of ensuring that the necessary documentation is prepared and filed. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 25 Wn.App. 658, 660, 612 P.2d 799 (1980).

Once a party seeking to establish the existence and material terms of an agreement has shown that there is no dispute, it remains for the party opposing enforcement of the agreement to show that the party genuinely disputes the existence or terms of the agreement. If the moving party fails to carry that burden, the trial court is obligated to disregard the alleged agreement. If, on the other hand, the moving party carries that burden and the opposing party does not, the court is empowered to enforce the stipulation. Marriage of Ferree, 71 Wn. App. at 44-45.

(3) Formality of stipulations

When parties dispute whether negotiations culminated in an agreement, noncompliance with CR 2A and RCW 2.44.010 dictates that the alleged agreement is unenforceable. Eddleman v.McGhan, 45 Wn.2d 430, 432, 275 P.2d 729 (1954). The mere fact that parties contemplated drafting a formal settlement document does not necessarily mean that they intended to be bound to an agreement only upon execution of a formal document. Morris v. Maks, 69 Wn.App. 865, 872, 850 P.2d 1357, review denied, 122 Wn.2d 120 (1993) (agreement was evidenced in letters exchanged between counsel). If formation and terms of an agreement are not in dispute, the agreement is enforceable notwithstanding the failure to satisfy the requirements of CR 2A. Lavigne v. Green, 106 Wn.App. 12, 20-21, 23 P.3d 515 (2001) (remanding for further consideration of whether the parties agreed to all necessary terms of settlement agreement).

(a) Stipulations in writing

A written stipulation signed by both parties' counsel is binding on the parties and the court. Riordan v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Wn.App. 707, 715, 525 P.2d 804 (1974). Moreover, a written stipulation signed by the parties themselves is sufficient to satisfy the signature formality of CR 2A, notwithstanding language that the court will not regard an agreement "unless the evidence thereof shall be in writing and subscribed by the attorneys denying the same." In re Patterson, 93 Wn.App. 579, 582, 969 P.2d 1106 (1999).

(b) Stipulations by letter exchange

A signed letter enclosing an unsigned stipulation did not meet the requirements of CR 2A, nor did a later-signed stipulation that was accompanied by a signed cover letter stating that the stipulation was contingent upon resolution of other issues, none of which were ever agreed upon. In re Marriage of Langham and Kolde, 153 Wn.2d 553, 561-63, 106 P.3d 212 (2005). A letter from not-yet-retained counsel stating "[i]t appears to me that there are not any substantial differences between the parties ..." did not satisfy CR 2A because it did not contain the material terms of the alleged settlement and was not the equivalent of a memorial of an agreement. Long v. Harrold, 76 Wn.App. 317, 319-20, 884 P.2d 934 (1994) (brackets in original). A stipulation was binding under CR 2A, however, when following the receipt of a letter confirming a prior oral agreement, counsel sent a letter stating "[e]xcept as specifically set forth below, your letter accurately reflects the terms of the agreed settlement. I view the items listed below as clarifying or supplemental points rather than conflicts with your letter." Morris, 69 Wn.App. at 867-68 (brackets in original).

(c) Oral stipulations in court

Stipulations made in open court on the record are binding on the parties; thus, when...