## Facts

- A group of property owners sued neighboring owners over a dispute involving a water line.
- The parties participated in mediation, after which defense counsel transmitted a written settlement offer with a 48-hour acceptance deadline.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel requested additional time due to a family emergency; defense counsel did not extend the deadline, and the offer expired.
- A member of the defendants later emailed defense counsel stating the group no longer favored the prior settlement terms, but counsel did not see the message.
- Unaware of any change in position, defense counsel sent a renewed written settlement offer mirroring the expired offer.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel accepted the renewed offer by email, and the case was treated as resolved.
- Defense counsel subsequently asserted the renewed offer had not been authorized and proposed different, materially changed terms.
- Plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement reflected in the email acceptance.

## Issues

1. When the existence and terms of a settlement are not disputed, but a client disputes an attorney’s authority, does Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 80(d) require the client’s written assent for enforceability?
2. Was the settlement enforceable because defense counsel had apparent authority to extend the renewed offer and conclude the agreement?

## Decision

- The supreme court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order enforcing the settlement.
- Rule 80(d) did not apply because the parties did not dispute the settlement’s existence or its terms; the dispute concerned attorney authority.
- Even if Rule 80(d) applied, the settlement was “evidenced by a writing” through the attorneys’ written communications; client signatures were not required.
- The settlement bound the defendants because their counsel acted within the apparent authority created by their conduct, and the opposing side reasonably relied on that authority.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 80(d) applies to disputes about whether an agreement exists or what its terms are; it does not impose a categorical client-signature requirement when only attorney authority is disputed.
- A settlement is “evidenced by a writing” when written communications adequately memorialize material terms and assent; formal client-signed documents are not necessary.
- Under agency law, a principal may be bound by an attorney’s actions within apparent authority when the principal’s manifestations cause a reasonable belief in authority and the other party reasonably relies, absent notice of limits or revocation.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the email-based settlement, holding that Rule 80(d) did not bar enforcement and that, in any event, the writings between counsel satisfied the rule; the clients were bound because their conduct gave counsel apparent authority on which the opposing party reasonably relied.


Robertson v. Alling, 351 P.3d 352 (Ariz. 2015)