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.
Fagala v. Sanders
Citations: 140 Ill. App. 3d 429; 488 N.E.2d 1093; 94 Ill. Dec. 846; 1986 Ill. App. LEXIS 1730Docket: No. 5—85—0048
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; January 29, 1986; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Imogene Fagala sought to set aside a settlement agreement reached in the circuit court of Marion County, which the court denied, leading to her appeal. The case involves Fagala and her siblings' inheritance following their mother, Rosa Sanders', intestate death in 1972. Fagala, at Raymond Sanders' request, signed a quitclaim deed transferring 80 acres of land from Rosa to Raymond, which was notarized by J. Cody Fankboner. Following the land's profitable oil and gas lease, Clyde Sanders' children sued for profit shares, revealing Fagala's involvement in the deed. Amoco Production Company and the Beeson Group subsequently claimed over two million dollars from Fagala. On June 13, 1984, during trial, all parties reached a settlement in open court, where Fagala, represented by attorney Roger Vetter, agreed to release claims against Raymond Sanders, Amoco, Craddock, Fankboner, and the Beeson Group, while they released claims against her. She also agreed to quitclaim her interest in the 80 acres, reserving a one-fifth interest in minerals, and to ratify the oil and gas lease. In return, Amoco and the Beeson Group would pay her a royalty of one-fifth of one-eighth of future oil and gas production, and Fankboner agreed to pay her $500. The settlements for the other heirs were significantly greater, each receiving $300,000 and a share of real property, while Fagala received a lesser agreement. After five weeks, Fagala, now with new counsel, filed to set aside the settlement, claiming it was unconscionable given the disparity in benefits compared to other heirs, and expressed that her prior attorney had been overly optimistic about her settlement prospects. Vetter informed Mrs. Fagala that her chances of winning at trial were only 10% to 20%, indicating a risky position due to potential claims against her exceeding $2 million, while the other heirs of Rosa Sanders faced no such claims. Despite initially rejecting a lower royalty offer from Amoco and the Beeson Group, Mrs. Fagala admitted to signing her mother's name on a deed related to the litigation. She contended that the settlement should be deemed unconscionable and under duress, but the court found no evidence supporting this claim. The disparity in settlement amounts was justified by the different claims against the parties involved. The court ruled that Vetter’s advice regarding her case was standard practice and did not constitute duress, as lawful demands do not equate to coercion. Mrs. Fagala's assertion that her will was overborne was contradicted by her prior rejection of a settlement offer. Additionally, the trial judge's comment about her risky position was not viewed as prejudicial. Therefore, the circuit court's denial to set aside the settlement was affirmed, with the judges concurring.