Rocco A. Russo

The appellant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order closing her appeal file regarding a new home warranty claim, arguing she was compelled under duress to enter into a settlement agreement during a case conference.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to enforce settlements and determined that the appellant's allegations of duress—specifically that the adjudicator told her she had already entered a contract—did not amount to coercion of the will.

The Tribunal concluded an enforceable settlement was reached and dismissed the request to reopen the appeal, as no grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18 were met.

Following a successful motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the plaintiff sought costs for both the motion and the underlying action.

The court found that the settlement agreement explicitly provided for the plaintiff's legal costs of the action in the event of default.

After deducting amounts related to a separate union claim, the court awarded the plaintiff $12,000 in partial indemnity costs for the action and $6,500 in partial indemnity costs for the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement after the defendant failed to pay the required interest on the settlement amount.

The settlement included a provision that failure to cure a default within 10 days would result in a consent judgment for the full original lien claim of $611,061.10, less any principal paid.

The defendant argued for relief from forfeiture, claiming the penalty was unconscionable.

The court rejected this argument, finding the consent judgment was not disproportionate to the original claim and that the defendant had not been taken advantage of.

The motion was granted, and judgment was ordered for the net amount of $286,061.10.