Elizabeth Rocco v. Imran Khan, and third party v. Patrick J. Eastwood, third party, A16-0982

Dispute over allocation and use of a vacated alley dividing two adjacent St. Paul parcels; deeds/contracts described overlapping interests and title records conflicted.
Rocco (west parcel) and Khan (east parcel) each claimed rights to portions of the vacated alley; Khan operated a day-care and installed a fence.
Rocco sued Khan (conversion, trespass, declaratory relief, reformation, removal of fence, damages); Khan counterclaimed and added third-party claims.
After a five-hour pretrial settlement conference, counsel placed settlement terms on the record in open court; terms included property conveyances, mutual easements, a survey to determine boundaries, removal of fence, payment, and dismissal with prejudice.
Counsel exchanged draft written settlement documents and met a surveyor, but Khan later refused to sign the finalized written agreement, raising new safety/traffic concerns.
Rocco moved to enforce the oral on-the-record settlement; the district court granted the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parties reached a meeting of the minds on essential terms	Rocco: terms recited on the record were sufficiently definite as to parties, property, consideration, and general terms	Khan: settlement was incomplete — lacked an essential term (traffic/parking safety) and depended on future determinations by a surveyor	Court: Agreement contained all essential terms; traffic/parking issue was not essential and could be addressed outside the core settlement
Whether a signed written document was a condition precedent to a binding agreement	Rocco: recitation and counsel agreement in open court showed intent to be bound; writing was a memorialization, not a condition	Khan: parties intended the written signed agreement to be required before the settlement was binding	Court: Parties intended the oral on-the-record agreement to be final and binding; reduction to writing was not a condition precedent

Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., 743 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2008) (standards for enforcing settlements and when evidentiary hearing is required)
TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri-Star Developers LLC, 677 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. App. 2004) (identifies essential terms for real-estate settlement and enforcement of on-the-record agreements)
Triple B & G, Inc. v. City of Fairmont, 494 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. App. 1992) (settlement of real-property disputes need not include nonessential terms like drainage)
Massee v. Gibbs, 210 N.W. 872 (Minn. 1926) (distinguishes oral binding agreements from cases where written signature is condition precedent)