## Facts

- Weston Lee Winegeart and Eryn Marie Winegeart, divorcing spouses, jointly owned a marital home in Pierre, South Dakota.
- Weston filed for divorce on October 4, 2016; both parties moved out of the home, and Weston later relocated to Texas.
- On January 9, 2017, the circuit court ordered the parties to mediate. They attended a single mediation session on March 9, 2017, and signed a written confidentiality agreement for the mediation.
- After mediation, Weston signed a listing agreement with a real-estate broker to sell the home; the listing agreement included a realtor commission.
- A third-party buyer signed a purchase agreement (for $330,000) on March 10, 2017. Eryn refused to sign the purchase agreement.
- Eryn claimed that during mediation the parties orally agreed to sell the home privately and not pay any realtor commission.
- Weston moved the circuit court on March 22, 2017, to compel Eryn to sign the purchase agreement.
- At a hearing, Eryn offered the mediator’s deposition testimony stating his understanding was that the parties agreed there would be no realtor commission because the sale would be private.
- On March 31, 2017, the circuit court found no enforceable oral agreement regarding realtor fees and ordered Eryn to sign the purchase agreement, allowing the sale to proceed with the realtor commission paid from the transaction.
- On April 15, 2017, the parties executed a written property-settlement agreement stating it was a complete agreement and expressly noting they could not agree about payment of realtor fees.
- On April 18, 2017, the circuit court entered the divorce decree and incorporated the written property-settlement agreement.
- Eryn appealed the March 31 order compelling her to sign the purchase agreement, arguing the circuit court should have enforced the alleged oral mediation agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erred by ordering Eryn to sign the purchase agreement for the marital home when she claimed the parties reached an enforceable oral agreement in mediation requiring a private sale without realtor fees.
2. Whether the later written property-settlement agreement—stating it was complete and acknowledging disagreement about realtor fees—displaced any earlier oral understanding from mediation on that topic.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order compelling Eryn to sign the purchase agreement.
- The circuit court did not clearly err in finding the parties had not formed an enforceable oral agreement in mediation concerning realtor fees.
- The Court also relied on the later written property-settlement agreement, which characterized itself as complete and expressly stated the parties disagreed about realtor fees, as inconsistent with Eryn’s claim that a binding prior agreement resolved that issue.
- Although Weston argued mediation communications were confidential and not admissible, the Supreme Court did not need to decide the evidentiary question because, even considering the mediator’s testimony, the record supported the finding that no enforceable oral agreement existed and the later written settlement controlled.

## Legal Principles

- The existence and terms of an oral contract are factual questions reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
- An enforceable contract requires mutual assent and sufficiently definite terms; a court may find no contract if the evidence does not show a meeting of the minds on the material term at issue.
- A party’s conduct after alleged agreement (such as promptly signing a listing agreement with a commission) may support a finding that no mutual assent was reached on a “no realtor fee” term.
- A later written settlement agreement that states it is the parties’ complete agreement and addresses (or expressly leaves unresolved) a disputed term generally supersedes prior inconsistent oral discussions, including those occurring in mediation.
- Mediation confidentiality statutes and related agreements may limit discovery and admissibility of mediation communications, but a reviewing court may affirm without resolving admissibility if the outcome is the same on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the order requiring Eryn to sign the home purchase agreement because the circuit court’s finding that no enforceable oral mediation agreement existed on realtor fees was supported by the record, and the parties’ later written property-settlement agreement—stating it was complete and acknowledging disagreement about realtor fees—controlled over any claimed earlier oral understanding.


Winegeart v. Winegeart, 910 N.W.2d 906 (2018)