With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". & Gerel v. Shaw, 126 Md.App. 325, 345, 728 A.2d 798 (1999) . In Callahan v. Bowers, 131 Md.App. 163, 748 A.2d 499 (2000) , we interpreted the collateral order doctrine as it pertained to the issue of immunity. In deciding that the order of the trial court clearly satisfied the second element, we concluded that in the event a litigant was entitled to immunity, the right may exist to forego trial. The circumstances presented here are similar. If, in reviewing the merits of the case sub judice, we were to reverse the trial court, the parties would be entitled to forego further proceedings. Because a decision holding the stipulation to be effective would result in the termination of the litigation, the order concerned an important issue. See, e.g., Clark, 286 Md. at 213, 406 A.2d 922 (<HOLDING>). The third element requires that the order “be

A: holding that trial court did not err by refusing to enforce mediated settlement agreement that contained an illegal provision
B: holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue
C: holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract
D: holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it
B.