I had read that previously....

So Ron contacted the court and talked to "Bill", who gave him the "easy answer" - one which is sensible and responsive (but may not be the full story)

He focuses on the word "dismissed". Which prompts a fundamental question I've posed previously, without response: Is it commonplace for a Judge to stipulate that he retains jusidiction on a case that is settled (and dismissed)? Why would a Judge do that? If it's done, it's done. And, as Ron points out, if the dispute did "arise from the dead", a new complaint could be filed for breach of agreement - in his words per "likelihood". But he retained jurisdiction. Why?

He also speculates on how a dispute could re-arise, suggesting it couldn't happen sense the case was settled/dismissed. Think a little about this. When the settlement papers were signed, the parties entered into a contract. As with all contracts, there is the presumption that all parties will act as agreed. At that moment, the agreement is done, settled, dismissed. So IMO, assuming there are still outstanding actions that may or may not be required of the parties to be performed (per the MOU which, with the backing of the court per the settlement agreement, has morphed into a formal contract), the dispute could easily re-arise if any party does not fulfill their obligations. Not immediate obligations (immediately following the settlement), but any obligations that may be triggered at some time in the future. This, Ron's own agrument IMO suggests a scenario (the delusional one) that would explain Ward's continued jurisdiction. I suspect that the retention of jurisdiction would be appropriate in a situation where the Judge knew of the possibility of the dispute re-arising due to some future event, and wanting to be fully assured that the dispute returned to his court (and not see a fresh complaint filled elsewhere). So here's a question: how does a Judge assure that a settled dispute (presumed settled at that moment in time) that is subject to further action based on an unpredictable future event returns to his courtroom?

Then of course there remains the other question to which there has been no response: is it commonplace for an MOU to be part of a settlement? No response ever provided. Perhaps a better question to Ron - sense he is an active attorney of 20+ years experience and who has settled countless cases - is whether HE has ever "attached" an MOU to any of those settlements? Has he ever handled a dispute where the full settlement was contingent on a future event?

Here I must add that the MOU in that case was weird and really unnecessary because any of my delusional contingencies could have easily been written into the settlement agreement without "Memorandum of Understanding" in bold across the top of an enclosed page. But what does make sense to me in that scenario is that the parties to the MOU were probably uncertain as to the acceptability of the proposed settlement (contingency) to the court. Doing an MOU (not a contract) and signing off would inform the court that the parties were serious, yet not obligate anyone to do anything if the court/Judge did not buy off on that approach. And with acceptance of the court, the MOU becomes a part of the settlement agreement (a real contract). No way of knowing whether this is what happened, but I could see it happening.

I KNOW this is beating a dead horse. You either believe that there's nothing there, or you remain open to the possibility. I does amaze me how some choose to argue vigorously against the mere thought of a possibility.

This was just another attempt at constructive agrument. For me the possibility is still alive.

SGE