Opp. to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, Ex. A at 7. On the same page, Plaintiff, as well as Plaintiffs Attorney Richard Rost, signed the document. Id. While Movants contend that an agreed upon provision, “dismissal of all claims,” was omitted, they do not specifically argue, nor does it appeal' ingenuous for Movants to argue, that the document Plaintiff executed and signed (and that was approved by Plaintiffs attorney) on July 5, 2000 was not intended to be the final expression of the settlement agreement. Because the Boskoff-Yano agreement is fully integrated, the parol evidence rule bars consideration of the Movants’ assertions that the parties intended that Defendant Yano would release his Counter- and Cross-Claims. See State Farm Fire & Cas., 90 Hawai'i at 325, 978 P.2d 753 (<HOLDING>). Because a provision for the release of
holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that the settlement agreement at issue in the case which contained a merger clause appeared to be fully integrated and that as an integrated document the parol evidence rule barred consideration of marns a party to the agreement belated assertions that he did not intend to settle his property damage claim holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract