It was only after they read the Ellis decision that Sejnohas cried foul. This conscious and deliberate decision to negotiate in light of a debatable legal question, and receive the corresponding benefits distinguishes this appeal from Mattson . Clearly, Sejnohas were aware that the validity of the assessments was in doubt. They negotiated those assessments at substantial savings in time and dollars, assuming the assessments were valid. They simply overestimated their chances of being correct on that assumption.
Persons enter into land transactions for a multitude of reasons.
A common inducement for such a course of action is the hope of financial gain . . . The decision to settle was made solely by Sejnohas knowing they had the option of litigating their disputed claim in court. This Court has consistently indicated it favors the compromise and settlement of disputed claims outside of court. Rescission of such compromise agreements is an equitable remedy, which should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. Additionally, a party seeking equity must have clean hands, and if not, the party should be left in the position in which the court finds him.