McCarthy v. Kent, 23CA1907

Kevin McCarthy loaned Marcus Kent a total of $60,000, secured by two promissory notes with $6,000 interest, to be repaid in full.
Kent paid only the $6,000 interest and did not pay back the principal amount, prompting McCarthy to sue for breach of contract and related claims.
The parties settled the lawsuit in mediation, signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Kent to pay $30,000 over 60 months (with specified payment terms and a stipulated $60,000 judgment if three consecutive payments were missed).
After mediation, no formal settlement agreement was signed; Kent did not make any payments.
McCarthy sought to enforce the MOU, and the trial court entered judgment against Kent for $60,000 as per the MOU's terms after default.
Kent appealed, alleging the MOU was not a binding contract and lacked definite terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of the MOU	MOU is a binding, definite contract	MOU was not intended as final/binding; terms were not definite	MOU is binding and enforceable
Effect of intent to finalize additional settlement documents	MOU effective regardless of later documents	Additional documents were required for MOU to be valid	Mere intention for later writing does not bar enforceability
Clarity of payment terms	Terms were clear and specific	Ambiguity in payment schedule and deadlines renders it unenforceable	Payment structure was clear and enforceable
Waiver due to delay in providing payment instructions	No waiver of enforcement right	Delay in instructions waived plaintiff's right to enforcement	No waiver; delay did not void future deadlines

H.W. Hous. Constr. Co. v. Dist. Ct., 632 P.2d 563 (Colo. 1981) (requires a meeting of the minds for a settlement to be binding)
I.M.A., Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc., 713 P.2d 882 (Colo. 1986) (intent to further memorialize agreement does not negate enforceability)
Sunshine v. M. R. Mansfield Realty, Inc., 575 P.2d 847 (Colo. 1978) (plain contract language is given effect)