Overview

• Context: Clear Valley sought to enforce a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 to resolve a dispute over land development.
• Land Issue: The dispute centers on Clear Valley's attempt to obtain absolute title to its property for residential development. The Morwoods, neighboring landowners, objected, citing concerns over access to their properties.

Key Points of the Case

1. Background:

   • Clear Valley applied for absolute title to develop its land into a subdivision.
   • The Morwoods objected, fearing the development would cut off access to their properties.
   • The dispute included unresolved rights from a prior agreement with a different developer (Optima Homes in 2010).

2. Alleged Settlement:

   • Clear Valley claimed a binding settlement was reached in February 2023 where they would sell a 27-meter land parcel to the Morwoods for $95,000 in exchange for withdrawing their objections.
   • The Morwoods disputed this, stating essential terms were still under negotiation, specifically around assignment rights, closing dates, and registration of the settlement.

3. Court’s Analysis:

   • A settlement agreement requires a "meeting of the minds" with clear, mutually agreed-upon terms.
   • The court found that while some terms (land size, purchase price) were agreed upon, critical terms related to assignment, registration, and closing date were not fully settled.
   • The Morwoods' refusal to sign the settlement documents demonstrated a lack of final agreement.

4. Conclusion:

   • The court ruled that no enforceable settlement agreement existed as essential terms were never agreed upon.
   • Clear Valley's motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

5. Costs: Reserved to be determined by the judge overseeing the ongoing application.