The parents could have paid and apologized and kept the cashiers check receipt as proof and a video tape of the apology if they were so paranoid.
Then, IF (and that's a big IF on your part) they could have proved to a judge/court that they did what was appropriate. I doubt Mrs. Young would have won anything more at this point, even without the signed agreement for the parents.
So, maybe it's you just being fixated on your one and only point.
This is what the Denver post February 4 article said about the agreement:"But Young, home with her own 18-year-old daughter and her elderly mother, said she saw shadowy figures who banged and banged at her door. When she called out, "Who's there?" no one answered. The figures ran off.
She thought perhaps they were burglars or some neighbors she had tangled with in the past, she said.
"We just wanted to surprise them," Taylor said.
Young left her home that night to stay at her sister's, but her symptoms, including shaking and an upset stomach, wouldn't subside. The next morning she went to Mercy Medical Center.
"We feel that knocking on a door and leaving cookies is a gesture of kindness and would not create an anxiety attack in the general public," Taylor's parents wrote to the court.
The girls wrote letters of apology to Young. Taylor's letter, written a few days after the episode, said in part: "I didn't realize this would cause trouble for you. ... I just wanted you to know that someone cared about you and your family."
The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims.
Young wouldn't sign the agreement. She said the families' apologies rang false and weren't delivered in person. The matter went to court."
You have two issues here. First the base facts:Two teens scare a woman, who then has chest pains. Medical bills are generated of which the unpaid portion needs to be paid by the families per the court. Those are the base facts as decided by the court.
The second issue is that we really have a woman with pathology here. Maybe she lives by the old "ones word is one's bond issue" and is wary of legal documents, or she is wary because, as the other related crosslinked articles at the Postwould suggest, of the Youngs' history of lawsuits(they've won some and lost some....a property dispute was a big issue for them, concerning drive way access.) I'm not sure of the husband's role in all this but from the history of the lawsuits, he seems to be quite a piece of work himself.
The Denver Post.com has all articles on this issue from Feb4 thru the present. When you link to the article posted at the head of this thread, all of the previous articles and history are there too.
I know Mrs. Young is certifiable but while she has rights to feel secure in her home and to have damages paid for harm done, she doesn't have the right to take anyone to the cleaners. She is not a forgiving sort, refusing to accept written apologies, ect.
The judge did chide the teens for being out late doing what they were doing. The one dollar in damages awarded to Mrs. Young should have been a hint to Mrs. Young to let the matter drop. The Linda Vesters and Mike Gallaghers of the Media should not allow this pathological woman on their shows or to send "cookies" to her to "teach" her a lesson about frivilous law-suits. This just feeds her pathology! She's had her fifteen minutes, we don't need to create a national Jerry Springer show out of her!