Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Frank Robino III v. Paul Robino
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 10871-VCS
Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware; August 16, 2017; Delaware; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Frank Robino III v. Paul Robino, et al., initiated in April 2015, Plaintiff Frank Robino III alleges breach of contract by his brothers regarding the purchase of his share in a family business and misappropriation of their mother’s estate. The parties agreed to mediation, which took place on July 21, 2016, resulting in a Settlement Agreement where Charles Robino, the sole remaining defendant, agreed to pay Frank $312,000. Although the Settlement Agreement did not explicitly require a more detailed follow-up agreement, the parties attempted to draft one but encountered difficulties, leading them to seek help from a senior Bar member, which ultimately failed. Charles Robino later contested the existence of a binding settlement, claiming it was formed under duress and due to his diminished capacity from substance abuse during mediation. He submitted medical records indicating treatment for substance abuse but failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of incapacitation during the mediation or the signing of the Settlement Agreement. Notably, he was represented by counsel, and the mediation was conducted by a highly experienced mediator. The excerpt references a similar case, Alston v. Pritchett, where a settlement agreement reached at mediation was upheld despite one party’s claims of coercion, illustrating a precedent for enforcing such agreements. Frank subsequently filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, which Charles opposes. The Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of the settlement document executed during mediation, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of “fraud, duress, and coercion” as unsubstantiated. The Court found the plaintiff's rejection of the settlement was not timely, noting that the parties could have included a rejection clause in the agreement if desired. The core issue was whether the parties had agreed on all material terms of the settlement; they had. The Settlement Agreement explicitly outlined the payment amounts and timelines from Charles to Frank, as well as the consequences for failure to pay. In exchange, Frank agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice and refrain from pursuing criminal charges against Charles or his family. These terms were deemed clear and comprehensive, making the agreement binding and enforceable. Charles failed to identify any unagreed material terms. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Against Charles Robino, instructing him to submit a conforming order within ten days. The court did not need to address disputes about additional terms sought post-mediation, as the enforcement motion pertained solely to the existing Settlement Agreement.