In Chernick v. Chernick, 327 Md. 470, 484-85, 610 A.2d 770 (1992), the Court addressed the impact of one of the parties' change of mind on a consent order which had been signed and filed with the court. Chernick, 327 Md. at 484. The Court held that where the underlying bargaining was not unconscionable nor the product of duress, "the fact that one of the parties may have changed his or her mind shortly before or after the submitted consent order was signed by the court does not invalidate the signed consent judgment." Id. The contractual nature of the consent decree meant that when there was uncoerced "bargaining for the reciprocal promises made to one another" the end product should not be disturbed. Id. at 480. The public policy of promoting settlement agreements by ensuring finality is another reason to disallow appeals from consent judgments. The Court in Chernick pointed to the desirability of settlement agreements that are binding and enforceable. Id. at 481. The Court of Appeals considered whether a party may withdraw his or her consent once the agreement had been filed with the court. (327 Md. at 481.) In that case, the Court held that where . . . the parties have reached a valid contractual agreement as to the terms of a consent judgment, have reduced it to writing and signed the proposed judgment through their authorized agents, have filed it with the court and removed the case from the trial calendar, a judge may sign the "consent judgment" even if prior thereto one party has tried to rescind the contract to settle. Whether a judge could still have signed the "consent judgment" even if all those factors were not present is not before us in the instant case. (Id. at 485.)