Case Update (9 April 2025): Ballesteros v. Ruiz; oral settlement agreement is enforceable under state law
The parties in this Hague Abduction Convention case in the U.S. District Court for the ND of Illinois are parents to a minor child. The Respondent Parent relocated the child to Illinois, and the Petitioner Parent filed a request to return the child to Canada under the Abduction Convention. The family is originally from Venezuela, moved to Colombia, and then eventually immigrated to the USA and then Canada, seeking refugee status in Canada. After their relationship ended in Canada, they shared parenting time through a verbal agreement, until the child’s removal in December 2023. The Petitioner filed the court case in the district court on September 17, 2024. At a status hearing on January 7, 2025, the parties sought to stay discovery pending settlement discussions. The Court referred them to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. On January 28, 2025, the magistrate judge spoke to counsel for the parties and “confirmed that the case had settled.” All that remained was for the parties to file any settlement-related orders and/or stipulations so the case could be dismissed. With nothing filed reflecting their settlement, on February 11, 2025, the Respondent sought to enforce the settlement agreement. The Petitioner conceded that he was initially in agreement, but “now has grave concerns about how recent changes in federal U.S. policy towards undocumented immigrations will affect not only his ability to visit with his child, as previously intended under the terms of the draft order, as well as his son’s wellbeing and ability to remain on U.S. soil on an ongoing basis.” The court held a hearing in March 2025, at which counsel for Petitioner conceded (twice) that the parties had reached an agreement.
State law governs settlement agreements. In Illinois, oral settlement agreements are enforceable if there is an offer, an acceptance, and a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding the terms of the agreement. The Petitioner conceded that an agreement existed in his briefing and at the March 17 hearing on the motion to enforce. The court also noted that the Petitioner did not dispute that the essential terms of the agreement are sufficiently definite and certain. Therefore, a valid and enforceable agreement exists - the Petitioner now wants to negate that agreement due to his grave concerns about U.S. immigration policy. The court noted that this is a situation of “buyer’s remorse” and it cannot undo a contract when everyone agreed and all conditions precedent have been fulfilled. It also did not help that the Executive Order that caused the Petitioner’s grave concern was issued 8 days before the agreement was reached. The court was also not persuaded that some conversation subsequent to January 28th’s oral agreement was an agreement to reopen settlement negotiations - even if this is true, the agreement reached on January 28th is still enforceable, short of some superseding new agreement. Further discussions about custody are now out of the hands of the district court, since it has no jurisdiction over that issue. They parties can voluntarily engage on those discussions on their own.
