Dispute over enforcement of a settlement agreement; Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority; Eppel v. Eppel; Principle that error requiring reversal may not be predicated on alleged error to which the aggrieved party contributed by plan or negligence; Lewis v. LeGrow

The court held that the trial court did not err by enforcing the parties-father’s and son’s settlement agreement. Plaintiff sued defendant claiming “he unlawfully converted property belonging to him, including the proceeds from a refinanced mortgage on his home.” They entered into a settlement agreement, but defendant refused to abide by its terms. Plaintiff then filed the present lawsuit, seeking to enforce the settlement agreement. He died before the matter reached trial and the personal representative of his estate substituted as plaintiff and continued the action. “Defendant testified he agreed to have a retired judge serve as the arbitrator of his original dispute with his father.” He asserted that he had told his attorney “he wanted to go to arbitration, but his attorney advised him to agree to a settlement, and the arbitrator directed him to sign the settlement agreement. Defendant claimed that he initially refused to sign” it, and that he ultimately did so under duress. The trial court found that the settlement agreement was a binding contract, which defendant breached even though he benefitted from it, and that he “failed to establish the defenses of duress or coercion.” On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by brokering the settlement, “and that the settlement agreement should be invalidated because of duress or coercion.” It noted that because he “contributed to the alleged error by seeking to settle the first lawsuit, participating in the settlement negotiations, and signing the settlement agreement, he cannot now claim relief based on the argument that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority.” Affirmed.