Ps purchased a home for $1,775,000. After buying the house, Ps hired Grant Construction, the general contractor for the construction of the home, and to do additional remodeling and improvements under two separate contracts-a $38,408 Home Improvement Contract and a $130,276 Deck Improvement Contract. Ps were dissatisfied with the quality of the construction. After several discussions attempting to reach a solution, P began communicating with D’s brother, Jay Grant (Jay). P reached out to Jay with four options for settling the claims. One of the proposed options was for the Ds to buy back the property for $2,800,000 in exchange for settling the Ps' claims regarding the house. Ds countered with a purchase price of $2,500,000. Jay communicated the counteroffer to P, who rejected it. Late in the evening of October 19, 2020, after the Grants' $2.5 million counteroffer was rejected, Jay texted P: I have talked with Chris and Rachelle (MacKenzie says hi) and we are happy with all the terms you laid out (built in TVs, appliances, window coverings and ELFs stay, everything else goes, Jan 15 close, deposit paid on signing and remainder paid on close in cash). But 2.8 is a stretch for us. P responded to Jay the next morning: Glad we could reach agreement. What is the name and contact points of your attorney? Ours is Karl Rudbach and Ramlow & Rudbach in Whitefish. Jay then replied to P: Me too. Her name is Samantha Travis at Ogle, Worm and Travis. Counsel for both parties spoke about the terms of the settlement, agreed to memorialize the terms in a buy-sell agreement and a separate general release, and agreed Attorney Travis would draft the documents. On October 30, 2020, Travis emailed the documents to counsel for Ps. In her email to Attorney Rudbach, Travis wrote: Thanks for the call last week on this case. As we discussed, attached are proposed Buy: Sell Agreement and Release for the Ps' review. These documents have been approved by Ds. You will notice that Jason Grant will be the Buyer. Ps reviewed the documents and rejected several terms contained within. P then instructed his attorney to send a counteroffer to the Ds' attorney. Ps filed the lawsuit on February 9, 2021, asserting numerous claims against the Grants regarding the construction and sale of the house. Ds moved for summary judgment, claiming the parties had entered into a binding, enforceable settlement agreement. Ps filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting that, under the undisputed facts, the parties did not have an enforceable settlement agreement as a matter of law. The court granted Ds' summary judgment motion and denied Ps' cross-motion. Ps tried to dismiss the lawsuit. They were denied, and Ps appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.