Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-674 Keith Soderbeck, Respondent, vs. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc., Appellant. Filed December 21, 2010 Reversed Hudson, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-C6-03-004083 Owen L. Sorenson, Meghan A. Cooper, Stringer & Rohleder, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) Robert Mahoney, Geraghty, O`Loughlin & Kenney, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Wright, Judge; and Ross, Judge. SYLLABUS In the absence of contractual language to the contrary, a plaintiff who repudiates and refuses to perform his obligations under a signed settlement agreement is not entitled to recover interest on settlement proceeds when a court ultimately enforces the settlement agreement.

OPINION HUDSON, Judge Appellant medical diagnostic company challenges the district court`s judgment in favor of respondent awarding interest on a personal-injury settlement of respondent`s medical-malpractice action. Because the settlement agreement does not provide for

interest and respondent repudiated the settlement agreement, we conclude that the settlement amount did not become due or ascertainable and thus appellant is not liable for interest on the settlement amount. We therefore reverse. FACTS On December 9, 2003, respondent Keith Soderbeck agreed to settle his medicalmalpractice lawsuit against appellant Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. (CDI), for $150,000. The settlement agreement did not mention interest. The next day, Soderbeck repudiated the settlement agreement and refused to sign a release and stipulation for dismissal. CDI moved the district court to enforce the agreement. After a two-year procedural delay, the district court determined that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable. Soderbeck appealed, claiming that the settlement agreement was invalid because it was improvident and he was incompetent due to the influence of medication. This court affirmed the determination that Soderbeck was competent at the time of settlement, but we remanded for the district court to decide whether the settlement was improvident. Soderbeck v. Ctr. for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc., No. A06-2369, 2007 WL 4564109 (Minn. App. Dec. 31, 2007).

2

On remand, the district court determined that the settlement was provident and granted CDI`s motion to enforce, but it reserved ruling on whether CDI owed interest on the $150,000 settlement amount. On October 13, 2008, CDI tendered the $150,000 settlement payment to Soderbeck, and, on the same day, Soderbeck filed a motion for interest pursuant to Minn. Stat.

Download A10-674, Keith Soderbeck, Respondent, vs. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc., A

Minnesota Law