Teenager loses dad his 80 grand settlement by posting on Facebook

[al66pine]

You should be a lawyer, I was all on the family's side and now I'm up in arms AGAINST the family! I know there are some states in which parents are legally responsible for anything their children do, but some states don't have that law. I wonder if something like that will play into what's going on here?

Snoods`
Re state laws making parents are legally responsible for anything their children do.
Yes, some states, some types of minor's actions.

As far as I recall, those statutes apply
in situations where a minor's actions damage property or injure third parties, parents may be
financially responsible for the injuries or damage to third parties in civil lawsuits.

In Snay v Gulliver, it was (arguably) a minor's action causing fin. harm to parents, not to a third party.
Actually MrS telling dau 'the case was settled and they were happy with the result' was the breach of agreement.
That breach, in and of itself, violated conf cl in agreement.
Then dau's FB post announcing existence and favorable terms of settlement
was digital-documentary evd of Mr S' breach and just distributed info more widely.

AfterMrS's breach (then compounded by dau's FB post) then conf cl kicked in:
' breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiff's portion of the settlement Payments [the $80k].'
The school argued to enforce it & app ct agreed -No $80,000 for MrS.

By signing settlemt agreement w conf cl and breach consequences cl in it,
MrS had agreed (in advance of breach) to giving up the $80,000 pt of settlement if he breached.

Snoods,
you asked 'if something like that [parental responsibility law] will play into what's going on here.'
I don't see how PRL applies here, but someone else may see it.

JM2cts and I could be wrong.

 

[Snoods]

Thank you so much for your thorough answer to my question, al66pine, I really appreciate it! Very informative!

 

[Karmady]

You should be a lawyer, I was all on the family's side and now I'm up in arms AGAINST the family! I know there are some states in which parents are legally responsible for anything their children do, but some states don't have that law. I wonder if something like that will play into what's going on here?

It won't, imo. The case has almost nothing to do with what the daughter did imo. She could have said nothing about the settlement on fb and the father would still have breached the agreement. The fb post was just proof of the breach. He lost the settlement money because HE breached the agreement HE made -- not because his daughter posted about it.

jmo

 

[jjenny]

It won't, imo. The case has almost nothing to do with what the daughter did imo. She could have said nothing about the settlement on fb and the father would still have breached the agreement. The fb post was just proof of the breach. He lost the settlement money because HE breached the agreement HE made -- not because his daughter posted about it.

jmo

Nobody would know he breached an agreement if his daughter didn't post about the settlement on facebook.

 

[Montjoy]

Nobody would know he breached an agreement if his daughter didn't post about the settlement on facebook.

This is almost a circular argument; his daughter couldn't have posted about the settlement without her father having breached the confidentiality agreement in the first place.

 

[Karmady]

Nobody would know he breached an agreement if his daughter didn't post about the settlement on facebook.

That's what I said. Her post is merely the proof of the breach. He's not being held responsible for her posting, but for the breach that her post merely proves.

jmo

 

[al66pine]

Nobody would know he breached an agreement if his daughter didn't post about the settlement on facebook.

Imo, even without dau's FB post to 1000+ ppl, it's still possible SOMEONE would know
MrS told her about settlement, thereby breaching confidentiality cl, resulting in disgorgement of $80,000.

Examples:
1.
What if dau had written the same comment (as FB post) in her little hard-copy diary w her name and address inside,
accidentally left it at school or Starbucks, where someone picked it up, figured out who it was, and gave it to the school?
Then dau's handwritten entry = documentary evd. MrS told her about settlement, thereby breaching confidentiality cl.
2.
What if dau had sent text, IM, email (same as FB post) to only her BFF?
Maybe it is forwarded to school, directly by BFF, or thru the grapevine?
Then text, IM, email = digital documentary evd MrS told her about settlement, thereby breaching confidentiality cl.
3.
What if dau made same comment to her BFF on phone or in person?
Then BFF's statement = eye/ear-witness testimony/evidence MrS told her about settlement, thereby breaching confidentiality cl.

Any of the above may be unlikely but not impossible ways that
school could have learned about breach, even without dau's FBpost.

Per the app ct opinion, MrS made conf. cl agreement, signed con cl agreement which set forth the specific consequence of breach. then he breached the agreement but did not want to incur the consequence, so reversed trial ct decision. Sorry, no $80,000 to Mr S.

I hope MrS, MrsS, dau, and all those involved learn something from this expensive lesson. Maybe ppl reading about it will too.
I try to learn something new every day (and usu do).

BTW, MrS himself said (in a deposition, interrogatory, at a hearing and/or in trial ct-filings) he told dau about settlement, as linked link in one of my posts above.

 

[legalmania]

How old is the daughter? Isn't it true that if she is a minor she can't be held responsible to the terms of a contract? Now I know it depends on the state and the fact that it was a settlement. I would have to do a whole lot of research. I think the father should still get his back pay because that's actually damages, and of course the attorneys will get their pay.

 

[al66pine]

How old is the daughter? Isn't it true that if she is a minor she can't be held responsible to the terms of a contract? Now I know it depends on the state and the fact that it was a settlement. I would have to do a whole lot of research. I think the father should still get his back pay because that's actually damages, and of course the attorneys will get their pay.

Research? App Ct opinion for this case at link.
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-1952.rh.pdf
Enlightening. 7 pages, worth reading.
Answers several issues discussed upthread

After reading that, I made a couple posts - w quotes from opn -
#54 and 67, also some (15, 20, 38) before I found link to opn.

The confidentiality cl (NDA) is pretty detailed and spells out disgorgement
(of the $80,000 pt of settlement) as a result of breach.
Also MrS admitted in ct (interrog, deposition, and/or hearing) that he told the dau. That's the breach.
W her FB post, Dau did a darn fine job of documenting his breach.

 

[legalmania]

Research? App Ct opinion for this case at link.
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-1952.rh.pdf
Enlightening. 7 pages, worth reading.
Answers several issues discussed upthread

After reading that, I made a couple posts - w quotes from opn -
#54 and 67, also some (15, 20, 38) before I found link to opn.

The confidentiality cl (NDA) is pretty detailed and spells out disgorgement
(of the $80,000 pt of settlement) as a result of breach.
Also MrS admitted in ct (interrog, deposition, and/or hearing) that he told the dau. That's the breach.
W her FB post, Dau did a darn fine job of documenting his breach.

I'm going to have to reread this when I'm not half asleep. What I don't understand is doesn't this become public record after the case is over? Well it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I don't understand the secrecy. It's not a lot of money and the school was found responsible for discrimination of an older person. The only thing I can figure is this is a regular habit of the school and since he won, they're afraid there will be many others who will sue for the same thing.Thanks for the link. Talk soon.

 

[al66pine]

I'm going to have to reread this when I'm not half asleep. What I don't understand is doesn't this become public record after the case is over? Well it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I don't understand the secrecy. It's not a lot of money and the school was found responsible for discrimination of an older person. The only thing I can figure is this is a regular habit of the school and since he won, they're afraid there will be many others who will sue for the same thing.Thanks for the link. Talk soon.

BBM

School "was found responsible"?
Sorry, despite several other threads/cases where I followed your opns. and insight, now respectfully disagreeing on this point.
Msybe by the time you've caught up on sleep, I will caught a few zzzz's myself.
So we can talk later? :seeya:

 

[Karmady]

BBM

School "was found responsible"?
Sorry, despite several other threads/cases where I followed your opns. and insight, now respectfully disagreeing on this point.
Msybe by the time you've caught up on sleep, I will caught a few zzzz's myself.
So we can talk later? :seeya:

You are correct. The school was not found responsible (I'd bet a lot of money the settlement agreement specifically says that there is no admission of liability) and this has nothing to do with whether the girl is a minor, since she didn't have or breach a contract -- her father did, by telling her about the settlement.

jmo

 

[al66pine]

.... doesn't this become public record after the case is over? .... It's not a lot of money and the school was found responsible for discrimination of an older person. The only thing I can figure is this is a regular habit of the school and since he won, they're afraid there will be many others who will sue for the same thing.Thanks for the link. Talk soon.

BBM

BBM2
Did ct find school responsible for age-discrim? No, imo, per this seq of events:
-MrS filed lawsuit
-Judge ordered to mediation.
-Mr S & school reached agreemt for $ to his attys, $$ to him,
------- w conf. cl.,
--------w cl. for breach, disgorge $80,000 pt of settlemt,
-Mr S & school signed it.
Pretty sure one cl in doc said ~ School admits no liability for age discrim re MrS or other allegations made in his petition/complaint.
That settlement doc itself would have remained unknown to public, not filed in ct, if there had been no breach.
At same time as settlement ag, imo, Mr S & school would have signed a joint stipulation of withdrawal or dismissal of case
(subject to right of judicial enforcement of the settlement).
That jt stip allowed ct to dismiss case, without making any findings on the merits.
No ct ruling whether school was responsible for age-discrimination re his employment.

BBM1
Does this (terms of settlement agreement doc) become public, when a case is closed?
Gen'ly?
Settlement ag ........................... = usu not trial ct-filed doc, imo
Jt stip re withdrawal or dismissal.... = trial ct-filed public doc, imo.

This case?
Why did this settlement ag doc become public?
--- summer 2013 Snay filed motion to enforce it (get the $80,000) and
had to file the doc itself in trial ct, to show what they agreed to, that school owed him $.*

Any attorneys in the house? Or others? Please correct or clarify.
JM2cts and I maybe wrong.


*Then
--- school's defense for not paying = his breach.
--- trial ct held hearing, ruled no breach, school to pay.
--- school appealed.
--- app ct reviewed trial ct record w settlement ag docs, opn;
found MrS's telling dau was a breach, reversed tr ct.

 

[Tawny]

It doesn't matter whether she is old enough to be held responsible for a contract, it's her FATHER who broke the terms of the agreement by telling her in the first place. If he told a 35 year old, it still wouldn't be that 35 y/o's problem, because that 35 y/o didn't make any agreements. It's still squarely on the father's shoulders because HE is the one who was part of the agreement. He blabbed, he lost, game over.

 

[legalmania]

It doesn't matter whether she is old enough to be held responsible for a contract, it's her FATHER who broke the terms of the agreement by telling her in the first place. If he told a 35 year old, it still wouldn't be that 35 y/o's problem, because that 35 y/o didn't make any agreements. It's still squarely on the father's shoulders because HE is the one who was part of the agreement. He blabbed, he lost, game over.

IMO it's ridiculous to have a settlement with stipulations that only certain people can be told. Especially when one of the people that can't be told is his daughter who went to the school. The father claims he didn't tell her he won. The school settled the suit, imo admitting that the father was discriminated by this school and so I'm sure the daughter got some of the repercussions from the lawsuit. The father can still take this to the supreme court where the school may find themselves in a bigger mess then they care to take on, depends on the fathers financial and physical strength.

 

[legalmania]

It won't, imo. The case has almost nothing to do with what the daughter did imo. She could have said nothing about the settlement on fb and the father would still have breached the agreement. The fb post was just proof of the breach. He lost the settlement money because HE breached the agreement HE made -- not because his daughter posted about it.

jmo

Settlement agreements get breached all the time as long as there is a paper trail, there is a chance someone will see it besides the attorneys and are more than willing to accidentally leave a paper in the copy machine.

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...ttlement_agreements_is_virtual_necessity.html

 

[Tawny]

Why is it ridiculous to request and be granted a certain level of privacy in a lawsuit such as this?

 

[KristiDFW]

Why was the litigation important to the daughter?

Probably 'cause she was going to get a trip to Europe out of it?

 

[nrdsb4]

The school settled the suit, imo admitting that the father was discriminated by this school and so I'm sure the daughter got some of the repercussions from the lawsuit.

Lawsuits are settled all the time because they are cheaper to settle than to litigate. Settling implies NO guilt by the defendant and "innocent parties" frequently settle for an amount that is less than the cost of fighting.

It's my suspicion that the plaintiff didn't have a very strong case, or he would have held out for more money (80K is not very much in terms of years of lost salary for a head master of a private school) and wouldn't have signed a NDA which was so stringent.

 

[Karmady]

Lawsuits are settled all the time because they are cheaper to settle than to litigate. Settling implies NO guilt by the defendant and "innocent parties" frequently settle for an amount that is less than the cost of fighting.

It's my suspicion that the plaintiff didn't have a very strong case, or he would have held out for more money (80K is not very much in terms of years of lost salary for a head master of a private school) and wouldn't have signed a NDA which was so stringent.

exactly right, imo. And that's why the provision was so stringent and why the school enforced it by refusing to pay the money. Imo, they likely paid him ONLY to shut up, and he couldn't even do that. jmo