Opinion ID: 2447003
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Purported Settlement with NCRC

Text: Finally, Ms. Oh asserts that she reached a settlement agreement with NCRC under which NCRC was to pay $540,000 for the Property, and that the District had no authority to withdraw the agreement that she reached with NCRC before the District was substituted as condemnor. She argues the trial court erred in declining to enforce that (purported) agreement. The trial court ruled on Ms. Oh's motion to enforce the settlement agreement in open court, and the parties have neither provided us with the transcript of that proceeding nor given us an agreed statement of the rationale for the court's ruling. As a result, we have no basis for reviewing the court's ruling. The ruling must stand undisturbed, because it was Ms. Oh's responsibility as appellant to provide this court with a record which affirmatively shows that error occurred. P.F. v. N.C., 953 A.2d 1107, 1119 (D.C. 2008). What we can say from the record before us is that we see no basis for concluding that the trial court obviously erred in denying the motion. Contract law governs settlement agreements, T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje, 586 F.3d 6, 11 (D.C.Cir.2009), and a valid contract requires both (1) agreement as to all material terms; and (2) intention of the parties to be bound. Jack Baker, Inc. v. Office Space Dev. Corp., 664 A.2d 1236, 1238 (D.C.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). While Ms. Oh asserts that she reached such a valid agreement with NCRC (and had the burden of proving that a contract existed, see EastBanc, Inc. v. Georgetown Park Assocs. II, L.P., 940 A.2d 996, 1002 (D.C.2008)), the District cites an affidavit of NCRC Project Manager Nkosi Bradley, which the District presented to the trial court, avowing that his settlement negotiations with Ms. Oh concluded without the parties reaching an agreement. The only other evidence in the record before us pertaining to the purported agreement is a September 27, 2007 email to Mr. Bradley from Ms. Oh's counsel purporting to confirm[] our discussion today that the Oh condemnation case will be settled and the settlement amount is $540,000. In Rumber v. District of Columbia, 598 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.D.C.2009), another Skyland eminent domain case, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia held that a purported settlement agreement for the condemnation of property was a contract concerning real estate, subject to the statute of frauds, D.C.Code § 28-3502 (2001), [25] and that a writing that purported to memorialize a settlement agreement with NCRC was not enforceable since it was not signed by a representative for [the District and NCRC]. 598 F.Supp.2d at 105. Ms. Oh has not shown why the same conclusion would not apply with respect to the email memorializing her purported settlement agreement with NCRC. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.