- 19 -
opportunity to review a revised stipulation of settled issues on
March 12. The implausibility of Mr. McCarthy’s leaving
settlement unresolved on March 11 is heightened by the fact that
Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe had already once backed away from a tentative
settlement reached the preceding Friday (March 7). We find it
unlikely that Mr. McCarthy would have failed to review the terms
of respondent’s offer with the Wolfes and to obtain their final
decision whether to accept it on March 11, given these
circumstances. Second, Mr. Wolfe has offered no convincing
explanation concerning why, if be believed he had not authorized
a settlement, he did not think he needed to be present in
Columbus for a trial on the afternoon of March 12, which trial
had been scheduled in his presence at calendar call on March 10.
Finally, it is undisputed that Mr. Wolfe went to Mr. Neubeck’s
office on March 11 after meeting with Mr. McCarthy and thanked
Mr. Neubeck regarding the settlement. Mr. Wolfe attempts to
explain this action by insisting that he was assured by Mr.
McCarthy that Mr. Neubeck would make the two changes in the
settlement he sought. However, we simply do not believe that Mr.
Wolfe would have thanked the opposing counsel unless he
understood that a final agreement had been reached.
Another aspect of Mr. Wolfe’s claims invites further
skepticism. To support his position that the settlement was not
properly authorized, Mr. Wolfe offered as evidence at the hearing
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011