Texas Small Claims Settlement Offer

[firedawg]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
I filed a suit in small claims court. Before the court was scheduled to start an attorney from the bank sent a confidential settlement offer which I quickly rejected.
Is this "confidential" settlement offer able to be offered as evidence in court?

 

[justalayman]

no. negotiations are what they are: an attempt to avoid going into court. They are not an admission of guilt and the amount offered is basically meaningless.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
I filed a suit in small claims court. Before the court was scheduled to start an attorney from the bank sent a confidential settlement offer which I quickly rejected.
Is this "confidential" settlement offer able to be offered as evidence in court?

That is a very good question, but the answer is definitely no!

There is a cardinal rule that disallows into evidence offers of settlement or compromise, regardless of the quarter. Even the mention of such is prohibited and in a jury case could result in a mistrial and the imposition of strong ffinancial sanctions against the offending party.

The reason being that to permit such as evidence of an admission against the offeror would defeat the policy of the courts to encourage settlement.

 

[firedawg]

no. negotiations are what they are: an attempt to avoid going into court. They are not an admission of guilt and the amount offered is basically meaningless.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for your response.

 

[swalsh411]

And just because they offered to settle doesn't mean you have an open and shut case.

 

[firedawg]

That is a very good question, but the answer is definitely no!

There is a cardinal rule that disallows into evidence offers of settlement or compromise, regardless of the quarter. Even the mention of such is prohibited and in a jury case could result in a mistrial and the imposition of strong ffinancial sanctions against the offending party.

The reason being that to permit such as evidence of an admission against the offeror would defeat the policy of the courts to encourage settlement.

Thanks for the outstanding information. I went to the first court hearing but the case was continued due to a paperwork problem. The bank is represented by an attorney. I was told the defense attorney has the right to disallow any of my witnesses from testifying. Is that correct? I was under the impression I would be able to have witnesses that can support my case testify.

 

[firedawg]

And just because they offered to settle doesn't mean you have an open and shut case.

Yes, I understand that. I am aware that defendants may be inclined to offer settlements for many different reasons.

 

[justalayman]

The bank is represented by an attorney. I was told the defense attorney has the right to disallow any of my witnesses from testifying.

based on what? You are entitled to witnesses generally. Is there some reason they claim they can prevent them from testifying?



latigo: nice explanation

 

[Proseguru]

No, its not evidence. But you can say that you did try to settle the case but were unable to come to a result that both sides would be happy with.

 

[firedawg]

No, its not evidence. But you can say that you did try to settle the case but were unable to come to a result that both sides would be happy with.

That makes sense. I definitely gave the bank several opportunities to settle but it looks like they would rather pay more in legal fees than it would cost to settle. Of course, those legal fees come out of the bank's shareholders' profit. The banks have deep pockets and really don't seem to be accountable to anyone it seems.

 

[firedawg]

No, its not evidence. But you can say that you did try to settle the case but were unable to come to a result that both sides would be happy with.

That is great advice. I'll do that. Thanks!

 

[Ohiogal]

That is great advice. I'll do that. Thanks!

No. Do NOT do that. Proseguru is NOT a legal pro and this advice could get you in trouble.

 

[Zigner]

That a settlement wasn't reached doesn't need to be said. The hearing is evidence of that!

 

[firedawg]

That a settlement wasn't reached doesn't need to be said. The hearing is evidence of that!

That is correct. A settlement was not reached and is the reason I continued with the hearing. After the initial hearing and a continuance was granted by the Justice of the Peace, the attorney was still trying to negotiate an agreement with me outside the courtroom. Unfortunately, it was only 15 percent of the amount I am seeking. When I go to the next scheduled hearing I will make sure I don't mention anything about a settlement offer from the opposing side.

 

[latigo]

That is great advice. I'll do that. Thanks!

That is not great advice! It is entirely incorrect, misleading and unschooled advice! The very mention or allusion to settlement proposals or their absence is absolutely verboten!

Someone needs to follow “Proseguru” around with a broom and a dustpan!