Opinion ID: 2453587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It Was Error To Deny Chilkoot's Motion To Enforce.

Text: Chilkoot argues that the 2005 oral settlement agreement reached on the record was an enforceable contract with Rainbow, and that the superior court erred in failing to enforce it. Rainbow responds that Chilkoot agreed to reset the dates of the original settlement agreement, and that therefore Chilkoot abandoned its argument that the court should enforce the original settlement agreement. We agree with Chilkoot that the 2005 settlement agreement was enforceable. Civil Rule 81(f) states: Stipulations between parties or their attorneys will be recognized only when made in open court, or when made in writing and filed with the clerk. [8] We have held that oral settlement agreements made on the record are binding on the parties. [9] In this case, both parties clearly stated on the record that they understood and intended to be bound by the agreement. Under Civil Rule 81(f) and our case law, therefore, this agreement was enforceable. We are not convinced that reducing the agreement to writing was a bargained-for condition that prevented contract formation. The parties placed a complete and enforceable settlement agreement on the record; their agreement to subsequently memorialize its terms in a written document does not preclude enforcement of the oral contract. Thus, it was error for the superior court to hold that the agreement was unenforceable due to the absence of Rainbow's signature on the written settlement agreement. Furthermore, we do not agree with Rainbow that Chilkoot abandoned the contract by negotiating for different removal dates at oral argument on reconsideration. It is true that a party can abrogate an existing contract by accepting a new contract in its place. [10] But Chilkoot and Rainbow never agreed on new dates, and so never formed a new contract. [11] Thus, the failed renegotiation did not abrogate the original contract. [12] Nor did Chilkoot ever abandon its position that the original settlement agreement was an enforceable contract. [13] Rainbow's unilateral non-performance and the parties' failure to agree on substitute performance did not turn a valid agreement into an invalid one. Because the settlement agreement put on record was an enforceable contract, Chilkoot was entitled to the benefit of its bargain. Per the terms of the agreement, Chilkoot became owner of the property when Rainbow's performance deadline passed. We hold that it was error to conclude that the parties had not reached a settlement agreement and to deny Chilkoot's motion to enforce the agreement. We remand with directions to enforce the original agreement. [14]