Sands v. HELEN HCI, LLC, 945 N.E.2d 176

Sands, Wisconsin resident, sued in Eau Claire County and Menard entities in Wisconsin over assets from eight-year cohabitation.
MH Equity/Managing Member sued Sands in Indiana for disgorgement of attorney's fees; emails discussed dismissing Wisconsin and Indiana actions with prejudice in exchange for mutual releases.
Emails show Sand's side accepted terms; Shulman and Shockley drafted multiple dismissal and release documents.
On December 11, 2009 Shockley stated the draft terms were not acceptable; Sands moved to enforce the Wisconsin/Indiana settlement.
Boone County court conducted a hearing; the court denied enforcement by minute entry March 23, 2010.
This interlocutory appeal contends a binding settlement existed and should be enforced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a valid, enforceable settlement agreement?	Sands contends the emails showed intent to be bound with essential terms.	Helen HCI argues there was no binding agreement due to lack of certainty/intent to be bound.	Yes; the agreement was binding and enforceable.

Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind.2003) (settlement enforcement favored when terms are definite)
Batchelor v. Batchelor, 853 N.E.2d 162 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (contract existence; essential terms; meeting of minds)
Wolvos v. Meyer, 668 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.1996) (only essential terms needed; intent to be bound matters)
Illiana Surgery & Medical Center, LLC. v. STG Funding, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 388 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (intent to be bound relevant to enforceability)
Barrington Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Paul E. Draper Family Ltd. Partnership, 695 N.E.2d 135 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (contract interpretation when ambiguity is contractual language)
Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Marketing Group, Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind.2009) (memorialization vs. formation; substantive terms)
Janky v. Batistatos, 559 F. Supp. 2d 923 (N.D.Ind.2008) (distinguishes agreement to agree from binding settlement)