Freundlich & Litman, LLC v. Feierstein, E., 498 EDA 2020

Parties entered a settlement in which Chasan would discontinue a pending defamation appeal in exchange for $25,000 in settlement funds (roughly $5,000 from Littman/pla intiffs and $20,000 from the defamation-case insurer).
The insurer refused to pay the $20,000 and Chasan did not withdraw the defamation appeal; the parties also failed to agree on a written release, producing a mutual failure of performance.
At a November 21, 2019 hearing the trial court issued a bench order (not entered on the docket under Pa.R.A.P. 301) retaining jurisdiction, sua sponte "recasting" the settlement (canceling plaintiff payment obligations because Chasan didn’t withdraw the appeal), and threatening sanctions for noncompliance while declining to relist for trial.
Chasan appealed; the appellate majority quashed the appeal based on the bench order not being docketed and thus not appealable under Rule 301, while a dissent argued the bench order was final and appealable and that the court should have permitted a praecipe to enter the order.
The dissent would have reached the merits, holding the trial court exceeded its authority by unilaterally rewriting and enforcing the settlement; because both parties were in mutual breach and terms were ambiguous, the dissent would set the settlement aside and remand for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability/finality of bench order	Chasan: bench order was final, precluded trial, appealable	Littman/Majority: bench order never entered on docket under Pa.R.A.P. 301, so not appealable	Majority: appeal quashed on jurisdictional grounds; Dissent: order final and appealable
Clerk praecipe / ministerial docket entry	Chasan: praecipe could have been filed to enter bench order and perfect jurisdiction	Littman: procedural defect prevented appeal	Majority: quashed instead of ordering praecipe; Dissent: would have directed praecipe to cure defect
Trial court authority to rewrite settlement sua sponte	Chasan: court may not impose its own revised contract or threaten sanctions to force agreement	Littman: court could preserve settlement by revising obligations given noncompliance	Held on merits (dissent): trial court erred; cannot unilaterally alter terms or compel execution of a different agreement
Proper remedy when settlement terms are ambiguous/impossible	Chasan: set aside agreement and remand for trial due to mutual breach and impossibility	Littman: enforce revised settlement to obtain release/closure	Held on merits (dissent): set aside settlement and remand for trial; majority did not address merits

Yon v. Yarus, 700 A.2d 545 (Pa. Super. 1997) (Rule 301 jurisdictional defects may be perfected while appeal is pending)
McCormick v. Northeastern Bank of Pennsylvania, 561 A.2d 328 (Pa. 1989) (court excused lack of final order in interest of judicial economy)
Friia v. Friia, 780 A.2d 664 (Pa. Super. 2001) (orders concerning enforcement/refusal of settlement can be final when they effectively foreclose trial)
Casey v. GAF Corp., 828 A.2d 362 (Pa. 2003) (standard of review: plenary for enforcement of settlement agreements; enforceability governed by contract principles)
Pennsbury Village Associates, LLC v. Aaron McIntyre, 11 A.3d 906 (Pa. 2011) (settlement enforceability requires agreement on all material terms)
Mazzella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1999) (settlements enforced only if all material terms agreed; ambiguous/undetermined terms may require setting agreement aside)
Century Inn, Inc. v. Century Inn Realty, 516 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. 1986) (court may not order parties to sign a court-drafted agreement that differs from the agreed terms under threat of contempt)
Johnston v. Johnston, 499 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Super. 1985) (trial court cannot compel execution of a written contract inconsistent with terms placed on the record)
In Interest of N.C., 171 A.3d 275 (Pa. Super. 2017) (appellate caption/case naming may be corrected by the court)