- Mediated Settlement Agreement Not Enforced Where It Lacks Sufficient Specificity
Cross and Albright were neighboring landowners in Wyoming. Various disputes between them arose. Disputed issues included access to ditches on their properties and the visibility of storage sites for garbage and machinery. In mediation, the parties reached a global settlement, subject to entering into a formal settlement agreement. The parties disagreed on how to implement the terms of the mediated settlement agreement, and each petitioned the trial court to confirm its interpretation. The trial court declined to enforce the mediated agreement, finding that it could not discern its actual terms. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The Court acknowledged that rejecting agreements for indefiniteness is disfavored, but the agreement’s essential terms must still be ascertainable. The Court pointed out that the agreement here “did not contain the words ‘easement’ or ‘restrictive covenant’ [and] contained no terms specifying how access and the visual storage restriction were to be implemented.” While the course of dealing may in appropriate circumstances provide insight into the parties’ intent, that was not the case here. Other open issues included whether any restrictive covenant ran with the land or was a personal obligation, and how the easement would be recorded. For these reasons, the court concluded, “Given the disagreement and that the Original Agreement included a provision that a formal global settlement would be drafted within 30 days, it appears at most that the parties had an agreement to agree at some point in the future.” Cross v. Albright, 592 P.3d 1092 (Wyo. 2026).
- Video Recital of Mediated Settlement Terms Enforced
The parties reached a settlement in mediation, and the mediator recited the settlement terms on a video call. The parties verbally confirmed their agreement, but they never put the settlement terms in writing. The parties initially complied with the settlement terms, but a dispute later arose. A court action followed. The Kentucky Supreme Court, affirming the lower courts’ rulings, concluded that the oral settlement agreement was enforceable. The Court addressed a challenge based on the Statute of Frauds. The Court noted that Kentucky law defines an electronic signature as “an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.” The Court concluded that an electronic record “is tantamount to a writing under the Statute of Frauds” and that, under Kentucky law, the parties’ “unequivocal oral affirmation to the specific terms of the mediated settlement constitutes an electronic signature.” The Court also found the disputed terms to be clear and unambiguous and that “the recorded settlement agreement in the present matter reflected the parties’ mutual assent to complete terms with no reference to the necessity of future negotiations or agreements.” For these reasons, the Court enforced the mediated settlement terms as reflected in the Zoom recording with the mediator. Dotson v. CIA Drug, LLC, 2026 WL 2901948 (Ky.).
- Oral Agreement at Mediation Confirmed
A False Claims Act case brought by the U.S. government against Dr. Ma went to mediation. At mediation, an oral agreement was reached by which: (1) Dr. Ma would pay $2.3 million to the government over 42 months, (2) an initial payment of $100,000 would be made, (3) all claims would be dismissed against Dr. Ma upon receipt of the settlement payments, and (4) Dr. Ma would attempt to sell certain properties and the government reserved the right to place liens on those properties. The government filed a notice of settlement with the court and forwarded a written agreement for Dr. Ma’s signature, which was never returned. The government then moved to enforce the written settlement agreement, and Dr. Ma’s new counsel opposed the application, claiming that Dr. Ma never agreed to the settlement terms and believed them to be just general parameters for a future deal. The district court concluded that the parties orally agreed to the agreement’s material terms and that the standard terms in the written agreement were immaterial. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, noting that in prior cases it had confirmed settlements where the “material terms may be quite sparse.” The court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the agreed-upon terms constituted the “essential parameters to create a deal.” The court found as immaterial such standard provisions as: the date upon which the agreement became effective; the government’s right to pursue criminal and tax claims against Dr. Ma, as the settlement only applied to civil claims against him; and waiver by Dr. Ma of certain defenses should the settlement fall through, most notably in the bankruptcy context. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that “the fact that the parties did not discuss the details fleshed out in the written agreement at the mediation to be an indication that the parties did not consider them material.” The district court and the Fifth Circuit both acknowledged that Dr. Ma and his counsel may have believed that the agreement was not final until a written agreement was signed but concluded that they were “mistaken.” Rather, “the government’s intent to be bound, combined with the party’s post-mediation conduct, confirmed the agreement’s finality and binding nature.” For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the oral agreement reached at the mediation was enforceable. United States v. Ma, 178 F.4th 884 (5th Cir. 2026).
