We granted the application for discretionary appeal from the superior court’s denial of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in this divorce case. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to acknowledge the validity of the agreement, we reverse and remand the case with direction.
The parties had been married for 38 years when Retta Stookey commenced divorce proceedings. The evidence of record establishes that between January 2000 when the case was filed and August 2000 the parties participated in settlement negotiations and voluntary mediation. On August 27, Ms. Stookey and her attorney Catherine Lynch met in Lynch’s office to prepare Ms. Stookey for her deposition and to participate in telephonic settlement discussions with the attorney for Mr. Stookey. The parties reached a settlement that afternoon and the deposition was canceled. The next day attorney Lynch reported to the trial court that the divorce case had been resolved and requested the court to remove the matter from the September 1 trial calendar. Mr. Stookey’s attorney drafted the formal settlement document which was forwarded through attorney Lynch to Ms. Stookey. Ms. Stookey refused to sign the negotiated agreement and subsequently obtained new counsel. Mr. Stookey filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. In support of the motion to enforce the settlement, Mr. Stookey’s attorney filed her own affidavit that the parties had reached a settlement on August 27. Prior to the hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement attorney Lynch also provided an affidavit claiming that there was a settlement agreement, that she had the authority from Ms. Stookey to enter into and be bound by the agreement, and that the written settlement prepared by opposing counsel “fully and accurately reflects and encompasses the terms of the agreement worked out on August 27.” In her testimony at the hearing conducted on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement attorney Lynch reiterated that a settlement had been achieved on August 27 which was reflected in the written agreement prepared and submitted by Mr. Stookey’s counsel. Although Ms. Stookey called attorney Lynch as a witness in order to contest some terms contained in the agreement she did not adduce any evidence which indicated that she placed any limitations on attorney Lynch’s authority or that any restrictions on attorney Lynch’s authority to negotiate for Ms. Stookey were communicated to the opposing party. Ms. Stookey testified that she had never authorized a settlement and that she was confused about the discussions which took place on August 27, believing the discussions were nothing more than “negotiating just like we had done before.” The trial court refused to grant the motion to enforce the settlement because “there was no meeting of the minds between the parties involved with the intention of making the agreement final.”
