Manzili v. Palos Hills Healthcare, LLC

This appeal arose from a negligent care lawsuit against a nursing home, which settled at mediation for $300,000. After the plaintiff, acting through counsel with express authority to settle, agreed to the amount and the mediator confirmed the settlement, the plaintiff refused to sign the settlement agreement and release. The defendants moved to enforce the settlement, the plaintiff did not respond, and the trial court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to sign or authorizing the court to sign on his behalf. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appealed.

The First District affirmed, holding that settlement agreements are governed by ordinary contract principles requiring an offer, acceptance, and a meeting of the minds, which can be established objectively through the parties' conduct even if a party did not subjectively intend to be bound. Because the plaintiff's attorney had express authority to settle for $300,000 and nothing in the record showed that authority was ever revoked, the trial court properly enforced the settlement de novo based on the pleadings and attachments. The court also declined to consider a text exchange in the supplemental record because there was no evidence it had been presented to the trial court, consistent with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 329's limitation on supplementing the record only with materials that were actually before the trial court.

Although the plaintiff's briefs violated Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) and (j), the court declined to strike them, noting it had the benefit of a cogent brief from the defendants and chose to resolve the merits rather than impose the harsh sanction of dismissal. This decision is instructive for attorneys litigating settlement enforcement disputes, particularly regarding attorney authority and appellate record limitations.