VO v. SIANTURI (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiffs, Kimngan Nguyen-Vo and Duc Hoang Vo, are homeowners who sued the defendants including Jumantro Sianturi (Sianturi or defendant), a home builder, in connection with a home renovation project.⁴ Prior to trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement that Sianturi later refused to execute. After a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, a judge of the Superior Court concluded that Sianturi had authorized his attorneys to enter into the agreement and that it was enforceable. Judgment entered accordingly, followed by a corrected judgment. The defendants appeal from the corrected judgment. We affirm.

Background. The underlying complaint, filed in the Superior Court on October 21, 2019, alleged that the defendants performed defective construction work, failed to obtain proper permits, and committed fraud. The complaint further alleged substantial violations of G. L. c. 93A, the Consumer Protection Act, and sought attorney's fees in addition to damages.

Following several years of litigation, the matter was scheduled for trial on September 11, 2023. Preceding trial, the parties’ counsel engaged in extensive settlement negotiations. On September 10, 2023, the evening before trial, counsel reached a settlement agreement. The defendants’ lead counsel testified that Sianturi agreed to pay the plaintiff $200,000. At approximately 7:58 P.M., defendant's lead counsel sent an e-mail message to plaintiffs’ counsel, informing him that he was going home and that his co-counsel would finalize the agreement.

At 9:07 P.M. that evening, plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail message to defendant's co-counsel proposing additional settlement terms. These included a $50,000 default penalty, $100,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs within the first sixty days and another $100,000 to be paid within six months, a personal guaranty of both Sianturi and his wife, Elizabeth Sianturi, and a security interest in the amount of at least $400,000 on real estate they owned.⁵ The defendants’ co-counsel reviewed the essential terms of the proposal with Sianturi. According to defendants’ co-counsel, Sianturi requested only one modification: that the first $100,000 payment be due within ninety days rather than sixty. The defendant's co-counsel testified that he understood Sianturi to have accepted the material terms of the settlement proposal and believed that the parties had reached a final settlement agreement. That night, plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail message to a Superior Court assistant clerk reporting that the parties had agreed to settle the case.

Despite this, defendants’ lead counsel subsequently sent an e-mail message to plaintiffs’ counsel disputing that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. Sianturi then declined to execute the proposed settlement documents.

In response, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the settlement agreement and sought a real estate attachment in the amount of $400,000. A judge of the Superior Court held evidentiary hearings on that motion. During those proceedings, the defendants’ lead counsel and co-counsel -– who had since been discharged by Sianturi -- testified that they believed that Sianturi had authorized them to settle the matter on the terms the defendant's co-counsel communicated to plaintiffs’ counsel. Sianturi testified and denied that he ever spoke with his counsel about any of the proposed settlement offers, let alone authorized the final proposed agreement.

The judge found that Sianturi had authorized his attorneys to enter into the settlement agreement and that it was enforceable. The judge ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $250,000, plus prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs associated with enforcing the settlement agreement. The judge also ordered a real estate attachment in the amount of $400,000 to secure the judgment.⁶ A judgment was entered in the amount of $295,566. Later, a corrected judgment, including attorney's fees, was entered in the amount of $328,324. The defendants appealed.

Discussion. 1. Standard of review. We review the judge's order enforcing the settlement agreement and attaching Sianturi's property for an abuse of discretion or error of law, examining “the same factors properly considered by the [motion] judge.” Citadel Realty, LLC v. Endeavor Capital N., LLC, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 39, 44 (2018). “An appellate court's review of a trial judge's decision for abuse of discretion must give great deference to the judge's exercise of discretion; it is plainly not an abuse of discretion simply because a reviewing court would have reached a different result.” L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).

2. Validity of settlement agreement. The defendants first argue that their lead counsel and co-counsel lacked the authority to enter into the settlement agreement on their behalf. Specifically, Sianturi contends that he did not authorize the settlement and that his attorneys lacked the authority to bind them to its terms. We disagree.

The judge found that Sianturi authorized his attorneys to settle the matter, and that the settlement agreement was enforceable. The defendants’ lead counsel testified that he met with Sianturi on September 10, 2023, to prepare for trial and discuss settlement. The defendants’ co-counsel testified that he reviewed all essential terms of the proposal with Sianturi and that Sianturi requested only one modification to which the plaintiffs agreed.⁷ The defendants’ co-counsel further testified that there was no question in his mind that the parties had reached a final settlement agreement.

The judge expressly credited the testimony of the defendants’ attorneys and declined to credit Sianturi's contrary testimony. The judge found that Sianturi had authorized his counsel to enter into the settlement agreement. “Credibility of a party or other witness ․ is quintessentially the domain of the trial judge, in which the judge's assessment is close to immune from reversal on appeal.” Johnston v. Johnston, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 531, 536 (1995). The record supports the judge's conclusion that Sianturi was aware of the settlement negotiations, participated in them, and authorized his counsel to accept the agreement on his behalf. Although Sianturi argues that he was unable to understand the negotiations because he was under “high distress” while responding to an unrelated personal matter, “[t]he judge, as fact finder, was not required to credit testimony by the defendant ․ especially where both [witnesses] testified to the contrary.” Commonwealth v. Garvey, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 148-149 (2021).

The judge's finding that Sianturi authorized the settlement was supported by the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, and the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the finding was clearly erroneous. See Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Mkts., Inc., 424 Mass. 501, 509-510 (1997). Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's determination that the defendants’ attorneys possessed the authority to settle the case on the defendants’ behalf. See Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC, 466 Mass. 793, 801 (2014).

The defendants next argue that the settlement agreement is unenforceable because it omitted essential and material terms. The defendants note that the agreement failed to identify the specific property that would be subject to attachment. Again, we disagree.

A settlement agreement is enforceable where material terms are sufficiently complete and definite, and the parties demonstrate an intent to be bound. See Targus Group Int'l, Inc. v. Sherman, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 421, 428 (2010). Here, the judge found that the terms reflected in the parties’ September 10, 2023, exchange of e-mail messages was sufficiently definite and that the parties intended to be bound by those terms.

As the plaintiffs note, the agreement afforded Sianturi the option to select the property that would serve as security, and if no selection was made, their Pomeworth Street property would be used. “That the agreement leaves it to the defendants to choose between two defined settlement options does not make it indefinite as to an essential term.” Correia v. DeSimone, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 603 (1993).

Nor does the record support the defendants’ argument that the agreement omitted other essential terms. The judge found that the parties had reached an agreement on all material provisions.⁸ The defendants’ argument that the personal guarantee and $50,000 penalty were not agreed upon is unsupported by the record. Those terms were expressly included in the September 10, 2023, 9:07 P.M. settlement proposal, and the defendants’ co-counsel accepted those terms. “Because the judge's findings are supported by a reasonable view of the evidence, and the rational inferences drawn therefrom, we discern no error in his finding.” Goddard v. Goucher, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 48 (2016).

3. Attorney's fees. The plaintiffs seek to recover attorney's fees incurred in defending this appeal. Because we conclude that the settlement agreement is enforceable, and because that agreement expressly provides for the recovery of legal fees and costs in the event of default, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees and costs.⁹ We take no action on the plaintiffs’ request to add postjudgment interest to the corrected judgment, because in any event it bears such interest as a matter of law under G. L. c. 235, § 8.

Corrected judgment entered April 3, 2025, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

4.   Solution Brokers, Inc. is Sianturi's construction company; the plaintiffs contracted with Solution Brokers to complete an addition on their house. The defendant's various companies also include Northstars Realty, LLC and 41 Warren, LLC.

5.   The proposal also included postjudgment interest at a rate of twelve percent from the date of judgment, legal fees, and costs of collection for any default.

6.   The plaintiffs subsequently moved to modify the attachment order, and the judge held a hearing on that motion. The judge then amended the attachment order to provide for a $400,000 attachment on one or more properties owned by NorthStar Realty, LLC and 41 Warren, LLC to secure the judgment.

7.   As mentioned, supra, the only requested modification was that the first $100,000 payment be due within ninety days rather than sixty.

8.   As noted by the judge, the agreement sets out the following: “(1) the amount that the defendants would pay the plaintiffs, (2) the deadlines for each portion of the staged payment, (3) the consequences if payments were not made timely (an agreement for judgment for the increased amount of $250,000), (4) the requirement of a personal guaranty of the judgment, and (5) the posting of real property with equity of at least $400,000 as security.”

9.   In accordance with the procedure specified in Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004), the plaintiffs may, within fourteen days of the issuance of this decision, submit an application for appellate attorney's fees and costs with the appropriate supporting materials. The defendants shall have fourteen days thereafter to respond.