The moving parties sought to set aside a negotiated settlement agreement and obtain summary judgment, alleging multiple breaches including unilateral listing conduct, temporary removal of a property from the market, defamatory communications, and failure to divide corporate assets.
The court held that Rule 49.09 did not apply because the agreement was a negotiated settlement rather than an accepted offer to settle.
In any event, the alleged misconduct did not justify refusing enforcement or setting the settlement aside, as the complained-of conduct either did not amount to breach or was insufficiently serious.
Ancillary relief compelling financial statements and asset inventories was also refused, with the court directing the parties to proceed through the settlement’s agreed mediation and accounting mechanisms.
