This case involved a dispute over the accuracy and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement concerning the equalization payment for two properties.
The applicant husband sought to enforce the Minutes as written, which stipulated a $520,000 payment from the respondent wife.
The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for rectification, arguing the amount was a mistake and should have been $260,000 (half the agreed difference in value).
The court found the Minutes ambiguous and that there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of the payment amount.
Consequently, the applicant's motion to enforce was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion for rectification was also dismissed due to a lack of a prior definite agreement.
The court set aside the disputed Minutes of Settlement and confirmed the validity of an earlier set of Minutes.