The Importance of Memorializing Settlement Terms

Settlement discussions often move quickly, and parties may assume that agreement on a dollar amount is enough to finalize a deal. But when material terms are left unspoken or undocumented, even routine negotiations can lead to costly and time‑consuming motion practice. A recent case in the Pennsylvania Superior Court illustrates how inconsistent expectations—particularly when one party is unrepresented—can complicate enforcement and undermine the finality that settlements are meant to provide.

In Barbetti v. Afzal, et al., 2026 WL 200635 (Pa. Super. 2026), the Pennsylvania Superior Court examined the appropriate scope of a settlement release disputed by a pro se litigant. The case rose from purported failure to disclose material defects in connection with a real estate transaction. The parties entered into a settlement in principle based upon pre-trial email communications and confidential settlement negotiations facilitated by the Honorable Judge Caroline Turner on the morning of the scheduled trial. The court put a statement on the record, maintaining the confidentiality of the negotiations and the settlement, and the parties agreed that the material terms of the agreement were communicated on the record.

The defendants subsequently sent a proposed “Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release” to Ms. Barbetti by email titled, “Barbetti v. Khazaree, et al. – Confidential General Release.” The release provided that, in exchange for the settlement funds, Ms. Barbetti would relinquish any claims relating to the purchase of the subject property against the defendants and any third party. The following day, Ms. Barbetti responded with concerns about the tax implications and protection of her personal information. One week later, she sent a revised version of the release to the defendants, disputing the material terms of the document. She then drafted her own version of the release, with which defendants did not agree, and defendants responded with a simplified version of the original release. After Ms. Barbetti refused to sign the document, defendants filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement. Judge Turner recused herself due to allegations lodged by Ms. Barbetti.

The parties disagreed as to what was communicated during the confidential negotiations before Judge Turner; however, the trial court granted the motion and ordered Ms. Barbetti to sign a “slightly modified” version of the simplified release. The court determined that the defendants communicated their desire for a general release, and that a general release was discussed among all parties in chambers without dispute or objection from Ms. Barbetti. She submitted two emails to the court from one to two years earlier indicating that she was not amenable to a global release in support of her position.

On appeal, the Superior Court was faced with interpreting the parties’ intended scope of the release, complicated by the lack of specificity on the record, confidentiality of the negotiations, and recusal of Judge Turner. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the defendants’ emails consistently proposed a general release, and Ms. Barbetti did not dispute the nature of the release (in emails or in Judge Turner’s chambers), but rather only the monetary sum, during negotiations. The defendants’ emails after the settlement conference also consistently referenced a general release.

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the parties had agreed (or, at minimum, acquiesced) to a general release. The defendants proposed a general release throughout the negotiation process. Ms. Barbetti’s concerns related initially to the monetary amount and, after receiving the first draft of the release, to disclosure of her personal information. The email subject line and document title unambiguously identified the release as a “general release” and, defendants argued, the settlement communications to and with Ms. Barbetti used the term “general release.” Ms. Barbetti did not object to the terms or scope of the release on the record during the settlement colloquy, and in fact did not raise purported concerns until a week later.

Given the frequency with which settlements occur, it is imperative to document the scope of the agreed-upon terms to avoid unexpected motion practice regarding enforcement. Often, the parties are focused on the monetary sum at issue, omitting material terms from the negotiations. A better practice is to discuss and memorialize material terms as part of the settlement negotiation. This is particularly important where, as here, one party is unrepresented and may not understand the import or impact of settlement language. In Barbetti, the defendants’ communications about a general release were consistent, evidencing their intent with respect to the nature and scope of the release, an important consideration when adjudicating the Motion to Enforce the Settlement. Clear, cohesive communications are critical throughout litigation, but particularly when entering into a settlement, and parties would be best served memorializing material terms to a settlement to evidence intent should a dispute arise.

Meet the Author

Dana A. Gittleman

Shareholder, Marshall Dennehey

Dana A. Gittleman is a shareholder in the Professional Liability Department in the Philadelphia office of Marshall Dennehey where she chairs the firm’s Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group. Dana defends claims and lawsuits brought against insurance agents and brokers, real estate professionals, attorneys, financial entities, large product manufacturers, lenders, directors and officers, and other professionals. She may be reached at DAGittleman@mdwcg.com.