Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 22STCV06131, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

This action arose from a dispute regarding real property located at 9659 East Poinciana Street, Pico Rivera, CA 90660 (Property). On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff Sara Marie Alamo filed a Complaint against Defendant Joe Miguel Alamo, Jr. for (1.) quiet title, (2.) declaratory relief, and (3.) cancellation of instrument.

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement indicating that the parties had reached a settlement of this matter, including a stipulation that this Court retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.

Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement agreement against Defendant Joe Miguel Alamo, Jr. and for the appointment of an elisor. Defendant filed an opposition.

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under section 664.6. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.)

Plaintiff seeks to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

“Plaintiff, SARA MARIE ALAMO, and Defendant, JOE MIGUEL ALAMO, JR., hereby agree to settle this matter on the following terms:

2) In return Plaintiff will agree to a lien against the property in favor of Defendant in the amount of $20,000, no interest, to be paid on the sale of the property;

3) Plaintiff will also agree to a lien in favor of her two sisters - Jenna Alamo and Samar Alamo - each in amount $43,333.33, no interest, payable on sale of the property.

5) This action shall be dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs;

6) The parties shall jointly prepare a long form agreement with standard terms including complete releases; and

7) The court shall retained [sic] jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6.” (Emphasis added)

Plaintiff moves for enforcement of the settlement agreement on the grounds that Defendant is now demanding an additional term be added to the Settlement between the parties: a requirement that the subject property must be sold by a certain date.[1] As noted by Plaintiff, there is no express term requiring the sale of the Property by a certain date. Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the Settlement without this added condition.

In opposition, Defendant argues that the clause at issue, “to be paid on the sale of the property,” is reasonably susceptible to two different meanings. Defendant argues that the Court should adopt his interpretation because Plaintiff’s interpretation exploits an ambiguity in the Settlement to effectively give Plaintiff a life estate at her election. Defendant argues that the parties never intended to give Plaintiff a life estate. Rather, Defendant and his counsel entered into the Settlement with the understanding that Plaintiff intended to sell the Property immediately. (Kerendian Decl., ¶ 2; J. Alamo Decl., ¶ 2.)[2]

Defendant argues that if the Court enters this Settlement without this added term, “all it will do is multiply the proceedings and compound costs and fees, as Defendant will need to immediately file a lawsuit for partition against Plaintiff and her sisters in order to force the sale. There will be no defense to that action. Partition will be (is) a matter of right for Defendant. This fact alone should clearly indicate that Plaintiff’s “interpretation” of the Agreement is not the correct one.” (Opp., 2:23-28.)

The Settlement is not ambiguous. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, there is no obvious ambiguity on the face of the Settlement. Further, Defendant’s evidence does not show a latent ambiguity. Admittedly, ambiguities may be exposed by extrinsic evidence which reveals more than one possible meaning to which the language of the contract is reasonably susceptible. (Morey v. Vannucci (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 904, 912.) Here, however, Defendant’s belief on the timing of a sale is based solely on a vague representation by one party; this representation does not add any meaning to the “to be paid on the sale of the property,” language in the Settlement. Thus, there is no extrinsic evidence suggesting a latent ambiguity as to this term, either.

Absent an ambiguity for the Court to construe, Defendant’s request seeks to add a new material term. However, “[i]n construing a contract ... [t]he court does not have the power to create for the parties a contract which they did not make, and it cannot insert in the contract language which one of the parties now wishes were there. [Citations.] Courts will not add a term about which a contract is silent.” (California Union Square L.P. v. Saks & Co. LLC (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 136, 146 [quoting Levi Strauss & Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1479, 1486].)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreements complies with all the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

The Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreements pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted. Within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling, Plaintiff shall prepare, serve and lodge a single, proposed Judgment consistent with the Court’s orders herein.

The Court denies without prejudice the request to appoint an elisor to execute the Full Reconveyance of the subject Deed of Trust. Once the Judgment is signed, Defendant will be under the obligation to reconvey the Deed of Trust. If Defendant fails to do so within a reasonable time, Plaintiff may move for an elisor and other sanctions. Defendant is on notice that such sanctions may include civil and criminal penalties including sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

[1] Plaintiff asserts that this motion only became necessary when the parties attempted to convert their short form settlement agreement into a long form settlement agreement and Defendant took issue with Plaintiff’s inclusion of language that appended “whenever a sale may occur” to the provision at issue in this motion.

[2] Defendant submits the unsigned declaration of Defendant Joseph Miguel Alamo. An unsigned declaration has no evidentiary value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)

Department 58