Enforcable Settlement: Kouame v. EVJ13

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines issues in civil litigation cases from Maryland appellate court opinions. In this post the issue is whether an oral settlement agreement read onto the record during trial is enforceable when the parties later fail to execute a formal written document. The case is Kouame v. EVJ13 Martins Lane LLC, No. 1486, September Term 2025 (October 7, 2026). The Appellate Court of Maryland issued this unreported opinion.

Factual Background on Enforceable Settlement

This dispute originated from a property disagreement between two adjacent landowner groups. The neighboring properties shared access issues involving a narrow driveway as well as utility lines. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration of ownership over the driveway area and an adjacent strip of land used for sewer and water access. The plaintiff also sought an injunction to stop construction on the adjacent lot, along with financial damages.

The defendant responded by asserting ownership under existing property declarations. The defendant also argued that municipal authorities had approved the necessary permits for construction.

The trial began in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. After the opening statements and the testimony of the first witness, the parties paused to negotiate. Counsel then returned to the courtroom and reported that the parties had reached a resolution. Counsel read the full settlement terms directly onto the record. The issue became whether there was an enforceable settlement.

The agreement reallocated fee simple ownership of the disputed strips of land between the parties. It provided for a new shared driveway easement and a joint maintenance agreement. The agreement required the installation of safety features, such as a speed bump, a mirror, and an alarm. It also included mutual releases of all claims, a waiver of objections to future construction permits, and a mutual non-disparagement clause.

Although the parties agreed to reduce their agreement to writing, they failed to sign a formal contract. The defendant filed a motion to enforce the oral agreement. The plaintiff hired new counsel and opposed enforcement, arguing that the oral agreement lacked mutual assent, omitted essential terms, and resulted from fraud or pressure. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion to enforce the settlement. The plaintiff then appealed.

Parties’ Arguments

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in finding an enforceable settlement from the oral agreement. The plaintiff claimed that the courtroom statement was merely a preliminary step. The plaintiff asserted that the parties intended a binding agreement only after executing a final written document. Additionally, the plaintiff identified several terms that remained unresolved, such as the exact details of the maintenance agreement and the specific speed bump placement. The plaintiff also claimed a lack of understanding due to language difficulties and alleged misrepresentations by prior counsel.

The defendant argued that the trial court correctly enforced the contract. It asserted that both sides clearly demonstrated an intent to be bound when reading the terms into the record. The defendant emphasized that the parties defined all essential material terms on the record. The defendant argued that drafting a formal document was simply a final administrative step rather than a condition precedent.

Court’s Ruling

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s finding of an enforceable settlement agreement. The court analyzed settlement agreements under standard principles of contract law. It applied established legal factors to evaluate whether the parties intended to be bound and whether the terms were sufficiently definite.

The appellate court held that placing the settlement on the record during an active trial strongly indicates a binding intent. Both parties were present, represented by counsel, and voiced no objections when the terms were stated in open court. The court rejected claims of coercion, misrepresentation, or language barriers, noting that the trial record lacked evidence supporting those assertions.

Furthermore, the court ruled that all material terms were sufficiently clear. The core elements of the compromise—property ownership reallocation, shared driveway access, and mutual releases—were clearly outlined. The court explained that minor administrative details do not render an agreement unenforceable. A settlement is binding if the parties agree on essential terms, even if minor details are left for future written documentation.

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Enforceable Settlement

This decision offers practical guidance for trial lawyers handling settlement negotiations in civil litigation. Reaching a settlement at the courthouse steps is common, but attorneys can ensure that the agreement holds up under judicial review.

First, place the complete terms on the record with precision. When reading a settlement into the court transcript, state every material term explicitly. Mention the release of claims, payment schedules, indemnity clauses, and confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions. Do not leave core obligations for future discussion.

Second, confirm your client’s consent on the record. After reading the terms, ask your client questions in open court. Confirm that the client heard the terms, understands them, and agrees to be bound by them. This step prevents future claims of coercion, buyer’s remorse, or communication failures.

Third, clarify whether a subsequent written document is a requirement or a mere formality. If the parties intend for the oral agreement to be immediately binding as an enforceable settlement, state that the written contract will simply memorialize the agreement. If you intend not to be bound until signing a formal document, state that condition clearly on the record.

Finally, distinguish material terms from minor administrative details. Ensure that negotiations finalize key compromise elements. Leaving essential terms open creates a risk that courts will find no meeting of the minds. Careful preparation during negotiations protects the client and secures a final, binding resolution.

You can read other Blog posts on issues involving settlement, including Enforcing Settlement: Kolbe v. McKnew.

Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.