Contract – Litigant breached settlement agreement

Where the evidence showed a man materially, willfully and flagrantly breached a settlement agreement when he contacted another party’s employer and made false and defamatory statements, he was adjudged in breach of contract.

Background

Before the court are matters arising from two motions to enforce settlement agreements reached by Jeffrey W. Walburn and Margaret Cunningham, respectively, and John Rodgers Burnley, following a settlement conference on Nov. 17, 2023. They collectively argue that Burnley materially breached the settlement agreement by: (1) making defamatory statements to
Walburn’s employer; (2) disparaging parties to the litigation; (3) initiating new litigation barred by the settlement agreement and (4) failing to comply with the settlement agreement’s notice provisions.

Walburn

Beginning in June 2024, a caller identifying himself as “Tyrone Jackson” contacted Walburn’s new employer (Livewire), by telephone. The caller identified Walburn’s home address, his previous employer, FedEx, and stated that Walburn, among other things: (1) was “stealing materials from [Livewire];” (2) has a “terrible drug habit;” (3) sells drugs and (4) previously lost employment for those reasons.

Walburn maintains that Burnley, using the pseudonym “Tyrone Jackson,” materially breached the Walburn-Burnley settlement agreement’s express prohibition against contacting Walburn’s employers about Walburn. In defense, Burnley denies calling Walburn’s current employer and claims that the court cannot assume it was him based on voice comparison alone.

Given the issues raised by Burnley as to the authenticity and identity of the caller on the audio recording, the court convened an evidentiary hearing on March 4, 2026. During the hearing, the court heard the audio recording live. Based on the evidence presented, the court credits the statements by “Tyrone Jackson” on the audio recording as having been made by Burnley.

First, despite being given the opportunity to testify in open court, under penalty of perjury, Burnley declined to state on the record that he did not call LiveWire on June 6, 2024, and that the statements captured on the audio recording were made by him. Second, Walburn sufficiently identified Burnley’s voice as the voice of “Tyrone Jackson” based on hearing Burnley’s voice on prior occasions as his neighbor.

Third, Walburn notes that Burnley previously swore, in an affidavit, that Burnley had contacted Walburn’s former employer, FedEx, in 2023 and alleged that Walburn used illegal drugs and tried to sell Burnley illegal drugs “on numerous occasions.” The court considers this previous behavior as relevant to proving Burnley’s identity as the caller who lodged nearly identical accusations against Walburn in the phone call to Walburn’s current employer, LiveWire.

The court finds that Burnley’s use of a pseudonym demonstrates awareness of the contractual prohibition and an attempt to evade it. Such conduct indicates that Burnley not only circumvented the settlement agreement in bad faith, but willfully breached it. His unwillingness to testify under oath to the contrary further shows that Burnley is aware of the consequences of his actions but nonetheless refuses to take accountability for them. Given the seriousness of Burnley’s behavior in flagrantly violating the settlement agreement, the court finds that enforcement is necessary.

Attorney’s fees

By its plain language, the parties expressly agreed that the prevailing party in an enforcement action shall be awarded its costs and attorney’s fees. The court finds that the parties’ fee-shifting provision of the agreement requires an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to Walburn, which will be subject to a reasonableness review. Therefore, Walburn is directed to file a formal fee petition outlining the total fees and costs requested with the appropriate supporting documentation.

Cunningham

Cunningham maintains that Burnley’s subsequent lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-210, seeks to relitigate settled claims, further undermining and violating the Cunningham-Burnley settlement agreement. Cunningham asks the court to dismiss the subsequent lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-210, on the basis that Burnley
did not provide her with notice as required by the settlement agreement. After she filed her motion to enforce, the District Court dismissed Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-210, rendering Cunningham’s request for relief moot.

To the extent that Cunningham seeks fees, costs and other “relief as appropriate,” the settlement agreement required Cunningham to provide written notice that Burnley allegedly breached the settlement, and to include with that notice “written, audio, video, photographic, or other tangible evidence of the alleged breach.” Unlike Walburn, there is no record that Cunningham sent written notice containing the requisite evidence showing breach to Burnley prior to initiating the enforcement action in this case. Therefore, the court denies Cunningham’s motion to enforce without prejudice.

Walburn’s motion to enforce granted. Cunningham’s motion to enforce denied.

Burnley v. Valentin, Case No. 3:23-cv-00160, March 18, 2026. EDVA at Richmond (Colombell). VLW 026-3-135. 18 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-135
Virginia Lawyers Weekly