Greenwald v. Kersh

The trial court reasonably construed the parties settlement agreement to require restoration of the grade in question to the grade, which was in existence when the parties entered into a settlement agreement, rather than restoration of the grade which was in existence prior to construction of the first defendants' home, as the plaintiffs contended.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Gary Greenwald and Denise Greenwald appeal the trial court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement between the Greenwalds and Martin E. Kersh, Jill G. Kersh, 1st Magnolia Homes, Inc., and Henry Burns, Sr. collectively, the “defendants”. We affirm for the reasons set forth below. The Greenwalds sued their neighbors, the Kershes, and the builders of the Kershes’ new house, 1st Magnolia and Burns, for trespass and nuisance, claiming that the “grading of and deposit of dirt onto the Kershes’ property had altered the flow of surface water from the Kershes’ land and caused the Greenwalds’ property to flood.”1 Following our reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Kershes in Greenwald v. Kersh ,2 the Greenwalds and the defendants entered into mediation, resulting in the execution of a settlement agreement by all parties. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the defendants agreed to pay the Greenwalds $50,000, and to construct a “brick retaining wall adjacent to the driveway on the Kershes’ property in the location shown on the attached plan.”

The Greenwalds filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement claiming, among other things, that the defendants had failed to construct the retaining wall. The Kershes filed a cross-motion to enforce the settlement agreement, contending that the retaining wall was being constructed in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. After a hearing, the trial court found that a retaining wall had been constructed on the Kershes’ property, and that the defendants had restored the slope outward from the wall so that “the embankment and swale conform to the topography at the time the settlement was reached.” The trial court directed the parties to sign the dismissal documents and exchange funds as provided in the settlement agreement.

Greenwald v. Kersh

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report