Opinion ID: 2630193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the district court err in denying Simek's motion to enforce an earlier settlement agreement?

Text: [¶ 17] As noted earlier herein, the district court concluded that the 2003 Agreement was rendered void when approval of the Illinois Probate Court, a condition precedent, was not obtained. See supra ¶ 10. In his appellate brief, Simek finds fault with the district court in this regard as follows: The District Court's failure to consider the 2003 Agreement undermines its reliance on the 2005 Agreement. In other words, the terms of the 2003 Agreement are inconsistent with the terms of the 2005 Agreement. The District Court did not reconcile these differences and under this Court's juris prudence [sic] these inconsistencies would limit the ability to create an oral contract as the District Court did in its decision. For example, in Fowler v. Folwer, [sic] 933 P.2d 502, 505 (Wyo.1997), the District Court had concluded that there was an oral contract and the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the findings that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of an oral contract between a father and son. What troubled the Court and caused it impart [sic] to conclude that there was not an oral contract was the fact that there were different versions of the essential terms of the contract and that the essential terms were inconsistent and contradicted one another. Folwer, [sic] 933 P.2d at 505. The same situation exists here, the parties in 2003 agreed to essential terms including price for the real estate transaction. The Court in this case created a contract and supplied terms that are inconsistent.... [¶ 18] As with the first issue, we will again summarily affirm the district court. The present scenario in no way resembles that in Fowler, where this Court concluded that [t]he lack of certainty in essential contractual terms forces us to determine that an oral contract did not exist. Fowler v. Fowler, 933 P.2d 502, 506 (Wyo.1997). In the case now before the Court, two separate settlement agreements were reached-a written settlement agreement in 2003 and an oral settlement agreement in 2005. The fact that some terms of the two agreements are inconsistent with one another is legally meaningless. The 2003 Agreement became void because it was not approved by the Illinois Probate Court. The prior existence of the 2003 Agreement, as well as its terms, has nothing to do with the question of whether the parties reached an oral settlement in 2005, or with the question of whether that 2005 Agreement should be enforced.