From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT GR. v. MIH STEEL PROD

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
Jul 1, 2011
Case No. 3:10-cv-269-DPM (E.D. Ark. Jul. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:10-cv-269-DPM.

July 1, 2011


ORDER


Universal Industrial Management Group and MIH Steel Products entered into an undisputed settlement agreement, Document No. 14-1, that was to be consummated by the end of April. MIH has not performed. And Universal moves to enforce. MIH says that, as Universal knew, MIH had to dismantle and sell a barge to get the money to satisfy the settlement agreement, but "these efforts were thwarted by the recent flooding of the Mississippi River at Memphis, Tennessee." Document No. 16, at 3. MIH asks for an evidentiary hearing on whether dismantling the barge was a condition precedent to MIH's performance.

Because the settlement agreement is not ambiguous, the Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing. No "substantial factual dispute concerning the existence or terms of the settlement agreement[]" appears of record. Gatz v. Southwest Bank of Omaha, 836 F.2d 1089, 1095 (8th Cir. 1988). The parties do not dispute the settlement agreement's existence. Nor do the parties dispute the terms in their written agreement. MIH, however, seeks to add a term and Universal resists.

The parties' agreement, which MIH drafted, does not contain any terms linking MIH's payment to the dismantling of the barge or otherwise conditioning MIH's payment on that event. The Court must "construe a contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its term." Christmas v. Raley, 260 Ark. 150,153,539 S.W.2d 405, 407 (1976). That MIH needed to dismantle and sell the barge to raise the money to pay Universal does not create a condition precedent absent Universal agreeing to link payment and the barge's fate. "[A] promisor's financial inability to pay does not discharge the contractual duty and is therefore not a bar to a decree for specific performance." Christy v. Pilkinton, 224 Ark. 407, 407 273 S.W.2d 533, 533 (1954).

The Court grants Universal's motion to enforce the parties' settlement, Document No. 14, and awards Universal a $500.00 attorney's fee for having to seek enforcement. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-22-308. Judgment will be entered.

So Ordered.


Summaries of

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT GR. v. MIH STEEL PROD

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
Jul 1, 2011
Case No. 3:10-cv-269-DPM (E.D. Ark. Jul. 1, 2011)
Case details for

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT GR. v. MIH STEEL PROD

Case Details

Full title:UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC PLAINTIFF v. MIH STEEL…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division

Date published: Jul 1, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:10-cv-269-DPM (E.D. Ark. Jul. 1, 2011)