Anderson Settlement Agreement

If you need immediate advice on transaction agreements, please contact our team on 0131 270 7938. 3. Anderson argues that his assertion that Norton breached his fiduciary duty to him in the manner in which he allocated the transaction with Del Monte`s insurers is not excluded on the ground that the Supreme Court authorized the transaction. We disagree. 8. Anderson`s expert stated that because of the sole argument in Anderson`s case, he would not be of the opinion that $1.75 million is not a fair comparison and that he ”would have no reason to say that Mr. Jones erred in law to obtain this transaction” if Anderson`s case alone is considered. Anderson argues that our decision in Zepp v. Toporek authorizes legal action for breach of the trust obligation against his father, despite former OCGA §29-2-16(j). However, in this case, we found that a lawyer could not assert the judicial settlement of the minor applicant`s claim as an obstacle to the applicant`s request for abuse, given that the lawyer was not a party to the judgment that authorized the settlement and because the judgment did not authorize the settlement between the applicant and the lawyer. 211 Ga.App. 171-172 (1) (d).

In this case, however, Norton was a party to the Supreme Court decision and Zepp v. Toporek does not require any other results. 4.M. Anderson argues that, although the request to hold Norton and Cantey to account for funds from their $1.75 transaction was resolved by the Supreme Court`s approval of the referral, the Collateral Estoppel doctrine does not preclude their claim that norton breached his fiduciary duty to him, in which he used those funds. 13. Former ocga § 29-2-16 (1997) provided in the relevant part: (a) A legal guardian has the right to compromise all contested or dubious claims for or against the municipality he defends and may submit such cases to arbitration. A debtor may be exempted by the guardian if the exemption is in the interest of the municipality. In addition, the guardian may effectively appoint a lawyer on the merits of which the guardian is responsible for the conduct.

(b) Where the judge of the court of succession obtains a grant of an authorisation on the basis of the best interests of the municipality, the legal guardian is entitled to jeopardise any disputed or doubtful claim in favour of the municipality he represents, without receiving the consideration for such a compromise as a lump sum. . . .

september 11, 2021 · Bertil · No Comments
Posted in: Okategoriserade