Kluver v. PPL Montana, LLC, 293 P.3d 817

Kluvers and McRaes sued Power Companies in Rosebud County in Feb. 2007 alleging groundwater contamination from the Colstrip facility.
Mediation occurred on July 14, 2010, after over three years of litigation, yielding a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transmitted by email.
McRaes participated in mediation but did not attend the mediation in person; counsel for McRaes proceeded with settlement efforts.
MOU purported to memorialize a global settlement, including payment to plaintiffs, conveyance of land to the defendants, a leaseback, a perpetual first option to purchase, and a broad release of claims.
Within 60 days after mediation, land conveyances and related documents were to be executed; a 99-year renewable lease and a perpetual first option to purchase (or apparent right of first refusal) were included in the terms.
The district court later allowed enforcement of the settlement and ordered completion of the deal, while the Kluvers challenged the MOU as unenforceable and argued mediation confidentiality protected communications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the MOU a binding, enforceable settlement agreement?	Kluvers: no signed writing; statute of frauds/real-property transfer requires writing and signature.	Power Companies: MOU was electronic writing with signature via agent; parties reviewed and approved; authority existed.	Yes; MOU was binding and enforceable.
Did the court err by transforming an option to purchase into a right of first refusal using parol evidence?	Kluvers: parol evidence should not rewrite terms; MOU ambiguities cannot be resolved to alter core rights.	Power Companies: context shows intended right of first refusal; meaning should be read in light of entire agreement.	No error; court interpreted contract as intended right of first refusal.
Did the district court improperly admit mediation-related evidence under the mediation confidentiality statute, and was any error harmless?	Kluvers: confidential mediation communications should remain inadmissible and not determine enforceability.	Appellees: some evidence admitted; mediator’s report and post-mediation statements were necessary to prove settlement.	Yes, error occurred admitting confidential evidence, but harmless since MOU, map, and post-mediation communications suffice to enforce the agreement.

Hillstrom v. Gosnay, 188 Mont. 388, 614 P.2d 466 (Mont. 1980) (electronic signatures can satisfy writing/subscription for statute of frauds)
Marta Corp. v. Thoft, 271 Mont. 109, 894 P.2d 333 (Mont. 1995) (settlement bound where terms were negotiated in presence of parties; later written stipulation binding)
Hurly v. Lake Cabin Dev., LLC, 2012 MT 77, 364 Mont. 425, 276 P.3d 854 (Mont. 2012) ( enforceability despite missing details; waiver considerations relevant)
Steen v. Rustad, 132 Mont. 96, 313 P.2d 1014 (Mont. 1957) (certainty/completeness not required for specific performance when essential terms exist)
Hayes v. Hartelius, 215 Mont. 391, 697 P.2d 1349 (Mont. 1985) (statute of frauds not applied to prevent admitted contract where parties acted as if binding)
Lockhead v. Weinstein, 2003 MT 360, 319 Mont. 62, 81 P.3d 1284 (Mont. 2003) (binding to a settlement when assent manifested; intent governs)