## Facts

- John and Becky Lampe sued Joan O’Toole and Sinnett Excavating, Inc. for negligence arising from a July 1991 automobile collision.
- O’Toole’s insurer offered $28,750 to settle the Lampes’ claims.
- John Lampe agreed to accept $28,750 and authorized his attorney to accept the offer; the parties later stipulated to this authorization, and counsel confirmed it in open court.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly indicated the matter was “settled” and requested additional copies of the release, but the Lampes did not execute and return a release.
- The original action was dismissed for want of prosecution on February 14, 1995; the Lampes refiled on February 9, 1996.
- The trial court dismissed the refiled action with prejudice, ordered deposit of the settlement funds with the clerk, and entered a Rule 304(a) finding.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties formed a binding and enforceable oral settlement agreement for $28,750 despite the absence of an executed written release.
2. Whether execution of a written release was intended as a condition precedent to contract formation or enforceability of the settlement.
3. What weight should be given to stipulations and attorney statements evidencing assent to settle.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of the $28,750 settlement and the dismissal with prejudice.
- The court held the record established offer, acceptance, and a meeting of the minds on essential terms, creating a valid oral settlement contract.
- The absence of a signed release did not bar enforcement because the record did not show the parties intended the release to be a condition precedent.
- The court relied on the parties’ stipulations and counsel’s admissions as strong evidence that an agreement had been reached.

## Legal Principles

- Settlement agreements are contracts governed by ordinary contract principles; a valid agreement requires offer, acceptance, and mutual assent to essential terms.
- An oral settlement resolving pending litigation is enforceable when contract-formation elements are proved, even if no written release is executed.
- There is no presumption that a written release is required or that it is a condition precedent; the controlling question is the parties’ intent shown by the record.
- Courts favor settlement and will not permit a party to avoid a clear agreement merely by withholding a signature on later documentation.
- Trial-court findings that a settlement was formed and that no condition precedent existed will be upheld when supported by the evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an oral settlement agreement in a personal-injury action because the parties proved mutual assent to the $28,750 term and did not show that executing a written release was a required precondition to a binding settlement.


Lampe v. O'Toole, 292 Ill. App. 3d 144, 685 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)