David Dixon v. Pnc Bank, National Association Successor in Interest by Merger to National City Bank, 2021 CA 001462

Walter and Marie Lewis sold a portion of their Laurel County, KY property to their son, Jeffery Lewis, whose improvements (driveway, sewage lines, deck) encroached on their land.
Jeffery Lewis financed construction with a loan from National City Bank (now PNC), which held a mortgage on his property.
After default and foreclosure on the parents' property, David Dixon purchased it, but the sale was set aside due to these encroachments.
Efforts to settle between Dixon and PNC failed, so PNC sued Dixon to establish an easement for the encroachments and attach the mortgage to any interest Lewis had, including such easement rights.
PNC moved to enforce a proposed, unsigned settlement agreement that included an easement; the circuit court ordered enforcement and sanctioned Dixon for noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of unsigned land sale/easement agreement	PNC argued Dixon assented to the written settlement, including easement, via letters and conduct	Dixon argued he never signed the agreement or assented to the easement terms, so no enforceable contract	No enforceable agreement without Dixon's signature; statute of frauds not satisfied
Effect of letters and affidavit as written assent	PNC claimed Dixon's letters/affidavit removed the transaction from the statute of frauds	Dixon argued his communications simply showed continued negotiations, not final agreement	The letters showed only willingness to negotiate, not assent to material terms
Reliance on post-enforcement letter for assent	PNC cited August 2021 letter from Dixon as evidence of agreement	Dixon argued (and court agreed) post-agreement writings cannot satisfy statute of frauds	Post-agreement writings cannot create enforceable contract per statute of frauds
Contempt and sanctions for not signing settlement	Trial court imposed sanctions/fees for Dixon’s refusal to sign	Dixon argued underlying order (enforcing settlement) was erroneous	Sanctions reversed; enforcement order based on unenforceable agreement

Ford v. Ratliff, 183 S.W.3d 199 (Ky. App. 2006) (settlement agreements are interpreted under contract law)
First Commonwealth Bank of Prestonsburg v. West, 55 S.W.3d 829 (Ky. App. 2000) (interpretation of contract is a legal question)
Bennett v. Horton, 592 S.W.2d 460 (Ky. 1979) (statute of frauds prohibits enforcement of oral contracts for sale of land)
Smith v. Ballou, 277 S.W. 286 (Ky. 1925) (sale of land contract must be signed by party to be charged)
Walker v. Keith, 382 S.W.2d 198 (Ky. 1964) (agreement to agree is not a binding contract)
Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474 (Ky. App. 1998) (agreements missing material terms are unenforceable for indefiniteness)
Williams v. Commonwealth, 229 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for review of contempt sanctions)