The applicant developer brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding a land dispute that was blocking a subdivision development.
The applicant argued that the parties had agreed on the essential terms of a land sale in exchange for the withdrawal of the respondents' objection.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no mutual intention to be bound because several terms proposed by the respondents in a counteroffer, including the closing date, right of assignment, and registration of the agreement, were never accepted by the applicant.
