## Facts

- Joseph S. Hopkins sued Arthur “Art” Troutner for torts arising from alleged physical and sexual abuse committed when Hopkins was a minor.
- After Hopkins’s lawyers withdrew, Hopkins—then unrepresented—initiated repeated telephone contacts with Troutner’s counsel to discuss settlement.
- During negotiations, Hopkins asked defense counsel what the case was “worth,” and counsel stated his opinion that it was worth $3,000 to $4,000; Hopkins countered at $6,000 and accepted $5,500.
- Hopkins went to defense counsel’s office, was presented with a release and a stipulation for dismissal, was told the documents would permanently end the lawsuit, and was told he could seek legal counsel.
- Hopkins signed a release of all claims and accepted and cashed the $5,500 settlement check; the parties filed a stipulation and the court entered a dismissal with prejudice.
- Shortly after dismissal, Hopkins retained new counsel and moved under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 59(e) to set aside the dismissal and the release.
- The district court set aside the release and dismissal based on “overreaching,” primarily relying on defense counsel’s valuation statement, and ordered Hopkins to return the $5,500, which he did not do.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper to set aside a dismissal with prejudice and settlement release based on “overreaching” during negotiations between defense counsel and an unrepresented plaintiff.
2. Whether defense counsel’s statement of an opinion on case value, given in response to the unrepresented opponent’s inquiry, constitutes overreaching sufficient to invalidate a settlement and release.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the order granting relief from judgment and vacating the release and dismissal.
- The Court held the record did not support a finding of overreaching or other grounds sufficient to set aside the settlement under Rule 60(b).
- The release, dismissal with prejudice, and $5,500 settlement remained binding and enforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Releases and settlements are generally enforced absent established grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, duress, or legal incapacity.
- Rule 60(b) relief from a final judgment requires legally sufficient equitable or procedural grounds; mere dissatisfaction with a settlement amount is insufficient.
- An adversary attorney does not owe a fiduciary duty to an unrepresented opposing party in settlement negotiations, and expressing an opinion on value in bargaining—without more—does not constitute overreaching.
- A party seeking rescission or similar equitable relief ordinarily must restore, or offer to restore, the consideration received; retention of the settlement proceeds weighs against undoing the agreement.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court enforced a completed settlement and release, rejecting the trial court’s view that defense counsel’s value opinion to an unrepresented plaintiff, in an adversarial negotiation where the plaintiff initiated contact and was warned of finality and invited to seek counsel, amounted to overreaching justifying Rule 60(b) relief.


Hopkins v. Troutner, 134 Idaho 445, 4 P.3d 557 (Idaho 2000)