The appellant bank appealed an order enforcing a settlement under Rule 49.09.
The motion judge had concluded that the parties agreed to a reduced mortgage payout of $357,000 based on two letters between counsel.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a reversible error by failing to read the correspondence in the context of the entire negotiation history.
An objective reading of the full correspondence demonstrated there was no meeting of the minds on the essential term of the mortgage payout amount, and therefore no settlement was reached.
