Estate of Harold Forest Snow, 2014 ME 105

Harold F. Snow died leaving a will and a holographic codicil bequeathing certain real property to his daughter Susan; Linda (another daughter) served as personal representative and later filed a probate-court action alleging improvident transfer/undue influence.
On July 30, 2013, while Susan attended a deposition, the parties' counsel went on the record before a court reporter and stated, “We have settled the case,” then recited settlement terms; Susan left without being deposed.
Key oral terms placed on the record included appointment of Terry as personal representative, Linda’s limited actions before resigning, exchange of mutual releases, preservation/destruction of certain electronic materials, Susan’s retraction letter to police, validation and valuation ($400,000) of the holographic codicil’s property, waiver of estate-paid fees and accounting, dismissal with prejudice, and execution of implementing documents.
The parties exchanged draft written agreements afterward but disputed certain language and never executed a final signed document; neither party asked for a hearing when the estate moved to enforce the settlement.
The Probate Court concluded the on-the-record recitation was an unequivocal, binding settlement, adopted proposed written documents that memorialized the oral terms, enforced the settlement, and granted formal probate and appointment to Linda; Susan appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a binding settlement existed	Susan: the on-record statements were only an outline; material terms remained unresolved so no binding contract	Estate: counsel’s on-the-record stipulation manifested mutual intent and set sufficiently definite material terms	Court: Binding settlement existed; transcript showed mutual intent and definite material terms; evidence to contrary did not make ruling clearly erroneous
Whether probate-code §3-912 required a signed written contract by all successors	Susan: §3-912 requires a written, executed contract among successors to alter testamentary shares	Estate: §3-912 governs contracts among successors binding on a PR, but here the personal representative was a party enforcing the agreement so §3-912 did not apply	Court: §3-912 did not apply because the personal representative was party and sought enforcement; plain language excludes its application here
Whether an evidentiary hearing or summary-judgment procedure was required before enforcing the oral settlement	Susan: probate court erred by enforcing without trial/hearing or converting to summary judgment	Estate: no hearing necessary; parties submitted transcript and drafts and did not request a hearing	Court: No hearing required where transcript was authentic, unequivocal, and contained the material terms; trial court discretion to rule without hearing; any error would be harmless absent a showing of prejudice

Muther v. Broad Cove Shore Ass’n, 968 A.2d 539 (Me. 2009) (settlement agreements analyzed as contracts; recorded recitation can conclusively establish binding settlement)
McClare v. Rocha, 86 A.3d 22 (Me. 2014) (contract existence is factual; intent to be bound and definiteness required)
White v. Fleet Bank of Me., 875 A.2d 680 (Me. 2005) (appellate review defers unless finding is clearly erroneous)
Marie v. Renner, 946 A.2d 418 (Me. 2008) (evidentiary hearing required when filings are ambiguous and do not disclose binding settlement as a matter of law)
Toffling v. Toffling, 953 A.2d 375 (Me. 2008) (oral settlement placed on record at hearing may be enforced)
Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Star Equip. Corp., 541 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (trial court may summarily enforce settlement unless genuine dispute of material fact exists)