November 12, 2015
When parties to lawsuits finally agree in principle to resolve dispute, sometimes one side will request insertion of confidentiality terms in litigation settlement. These “gag orders” typically forbid the parties from disclosing the terms of the settlements. These requests can come as a surprise because requests for confidentiality may have not come up yet in the case. Litigation is mostly a public activity. Usually anyone can read the court file or observe motions or trials.
Some defendants fear that the dollar amount of settlement in one case may create a “benchmark” or market value for settlements in a similar, future cases brought against them. The facts and dollar amount may be embarrassing. Even if the settlement agreement denies admission of any wrongdoing, the act of payment may be interpreted by some as a sign of the merit of the claim. A plaintiff may have a short period of time to consider a proposal of a confidentiality clause. What do these confidentiality clauses mean to parties bound by them? Most confidential settlements are “successful”. The cases never end up back in court, the news or social media because the parties “move on” with their lives and business. However, in a 2008 North Carolina case, a HOA and its former property manager failed to achieve a clean resolution. Selwyn Village Homeowners Association vs. Cline & Company illustrates potential pitfalls surrounding confidential settlements. This case has many lessons on “closing the deal” in litigation settlement.
Selwyn Village is a condominium association near Myers Park in Charlotte. Surrounding Myers Park is an affluent, “southern charm” neighborhood with 100-year-old oak trees. Cline & Company 
was Selwyn Village’s property manager. In 2003, Selwyn Village suffered flood damage. When the board of directors made a claim on their insurance policy, they discovered that Cline had cut costs by drastically underinsuring the property. Selwyn Village sued Cline and the insurance broker. The owners must have been outraged by the devastation unrepaired by inadequate insurance. The board and its law firm may have struggled to hold Cline responsible. The manager may have had access to more information about their conduct than their client. Perhaps the manager pointed fingers back at the board as the responsible party? In between the lines of the court opinions one can imagine messy litigation.
During the middle of the 2006 trial, Cline agreed to pay the association $26,000 in settlement. The parties also agreed to “work out” confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in a consent order to be entered later. The court opinion does not discuss any estimates for the full amount of repairs. Even if insurance covered part of the costs, $26,000 seems like a low number to repair condominium flood damage in Myers Park.
While going back and forth with Cline about the terms of the confidentiality order, the HOA board requested that its own lawyers explain the settlement at an owners meeting. Little did they know that Kelly Ann Cline, daughter-in-law of the owner of Cline & Co., owned a unit in Selwyn Village. Ms. Cline attended the attorney’s presentation at the owner’s meeting. Kelly secretly tape recorded the disclosure of the terms of the settlement and provided it to Cline & Co.’s lawyers. Cline then used this “disclosure” as an excuse not to pay. The lawyers for the condo association moved the court to enforce the $26,000.00 settlement. The judge agreed with Selwyn Village. Cline appealed. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the settlement against the property manager. This case illustrates several pitfalls to watch out for in a settlement.
- Settling on the Courthouse Steps. While it is often best to settle cases as soon as possible, many settle right before or during trial because one side wants to see if their opponent is really serious. Other parties want to check out how the judge and jury receive some of the evidence before agreeing to settle. Parties must be prepared to continue to engage in settlement negotiations before, during and even after trial.
- Piecemeal Settlements. Selwyn Village and Cline agreed to a settlement “in principle” to end the pending trial, with a plan to hash out the confidentiality terms later. The parties had to live in the short-term with undefined confidentiality provisions. This may have contributed to the blow-up over the owners meeting. In legal proceedings it’s just as important to understand what hasn’t been resolved as what has.
- Scope of Confidentiality Obligations. In any representation, a lawyer needs to know who his client is so that he can counsel them regarding any settlement proposal so that they can make informed decisions. The Selwyn Village case had the issue of whether it was proper to talk about the terms of the settlement in the owners’ meeting. The courts did not appear to have a problem with what the lawyers did. The court’s decision does not outline what details the lawyers shared at the owners’ meeting. In other states or organizations the attorney client privilege may be waived by sharing something with the shareholders or members. In other cases, lawyers may not be able to discuss all the details of a settlement negotiation at a members meeting. Consult with qualified legal counsel to determine whether communicating something to someone.
- “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” The “espionage” adds a juicy element. An owner does not lose their rights to participate in owners meetings because the HOA sued her in-laws. The opinion does not say whether the board was aware that the daughter-in-law attended the meeting. It is common for industry people to have ownership connections in HOA’s they work for. This is what sign-in sheets can be used for. Each state has different laws about whether someone can tape record people without their knowledge.
- Sharp Litigation Practices. The N.C. courts did not seem pleased with Mrs. Cline’s secret tape recording of the owner’s meeting and then using it as a pretext for paying nothing. Parties in litigation should be prepared to deal with an opponent who may succumb to the stress and burden of litigation and try just about anything to get what they want.
Streisand Effect. According to Wikipedia.org, the “Streisand Effect” is,
[T]he phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the
Internet.
It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand [who] unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand’s mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman photographed the beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project, which was intended to influence government policymakers. Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, “Image 3850” had been downloaded from Adelman’s website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand’s attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.
Cline & Co. wanted the confidentiality provisions to avoid negative publicity about the settlement. What happened after the trial in this case is an example of the “Streisand Effect.” Ironically, many details ended up in publically available appeals court opinions.
The Selwyn Village HOA exchanged the risk of an unpredictable trial verdict for a settlement sum that may have been lower than what some may have wanted. After getting the threat of a jury verdict to go away, Cline Co. attempted to derail the settlement by refusing to pay and continuing the case through multiple appeals. The case illustrates the value and challenges of “closing the deal” in settling a case. Lawyers have varying professional acumen for settling cases depending upon their personality, experience and knowledge. When litigation seems inevitable, most parties are best served by lawyers who can fight for their clients or make peace in settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and client’s needs. The “Streisand Effect” can be avoided by being selective about which things to fight over. In some situations, “Who cares?” may be the best response.
Case Citation:
Selwyn Vill. Homeowners Ass’n v. Cline & Co., No COA07-116-2 (Ct. App. N.C. Nov. 4, 2008)
Photo Credits:
Charlotte, NC at night via photopin (license)
