Enforcement of a settlement agreement (SA); Whether the parties reached a settlement

The court held that the “trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing the terms of the [SA], which also included a provision for a pocket judgment and mortgage, and by denying the renewed motion” to enforce the SA. Plaintiff argued that the parties entered a valid SA “on the record in open court and that the trial court erred in its determination that there was no settlement and by ordering the parties to execute a written [SA] that (a) modified the terms of the payment dates and (b) did not include certain terms, including a consent judgment and mortgage.” The court held that the “trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing the terms of the [SA], as it erred by modifying the dates of the payment schedule under the” SA. It “was not permitted to modify the bargained for dates of the payment plan solely because defendants interpreted the terms differently.” The court appreciated “the trial court’s attempt at a practical solution to the problem of certain dates having passed since the agreement was enforced.” However, the trial court was not allowed to provide any reasonable details “because the payment dates were specific and not open to interpretation.” Plaintiff would “not receive the benefit of the bargain under the trial court’s modified payment plan. Under the [SA], plaintiff was to receive the final payment on” 6/1/27. But “under the new schedule, plaintiff would not receive the final payment until a year later.” Reversed and remanded.