Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 19STCV36008 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Miguel Rodriguez and Manuel Rodriguez brought this action against Defendants Maria Trinidad Mariscal and Ismael Rodriguez, alleging Defendants conspired to steal title to real property owned by Plaintiff Manuel Rodriguez. Defendants also collected rents from the tenants of the subject property. Plaintiffs brought the action for an accounting on the rental income, among other things. The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on May 17, 2022.

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement agreement is GRANTED. A judgment will be entered in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $70,000.00. Plaintiffs are to lodge a Proposed Judgment to be signed by this court.

Defendants submitted an untimely opposition to the motion. They contend the motion was not “proper[ly] and timely served on [them] by mail as the parties have done throughout the course of this litigation,” but was instead emailed and “went into a junk folder.” (Opp. 2: 15-18.) In the interest of justice, the court will exercise its discretion to consider the opposition. However, it ultimately makes no difference to the disposition of this motion.

If the parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

A settlement agreement in which the parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement must be signed by the parties (not just their counsel) and filed with the Court before the action is dismissed. (MesaRHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917-918.)

“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357.) Likewise, in “ruling on a motion to enforce settlement,” the Court “necessarily has the power to resolve factual disputes relating to the agreement.” (Ibid.) Of course, this also means that it is “for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement.” (Id. at 1360.)

The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on May 17, 2022. Plaintiffs now move to enforce the Settlement Agreement, entered by August 20, 2022. After a continuance of the first hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs have now filed a signed settlement agreement executed by all required parties to the action. (See Revised Gaugh Declaration of 12/01/22, Exh. A.)

Under the Agreement, “Plaintiffs ultimately agreed to release Defendants from payment of any alleged rental income they received from occupying the Subject Property in exchange for Defendants’ promise to return possession of the Subject Property to Plaintiffs with the monthly maintenance expenses…no later than August 31, 2022.” (Mtn. 4: 14-20.) The parties also agreed that this court would “retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement under the provisions of CCP Section 664.6.” (Id., ¶ 1.6.)

Plaintiffs now represent that Defendants failed make the monthly maintenance payments, resulting in an unpaid mortgage balance of $62,391.93. “As a direct result of the Defendants’ failure to keep the monthly Maintenance expenses current as promised,” Bank of America has scheduled a Foreclosure Trustee’s Sale for October 6, 2022. (Id. 5: 22-27.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask that the court “enforce the Parties’ settlement Agreement and order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs $70,000,00 to compensate them for the outstanding monthly maintenance Expenses Plaintiffs will now need to pay the Bank of America to stop their pending foreclosure Sale.”

In opposition, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff Manuel Rodriguez was the “sole borrower on the mortgage loan for the Subject Property and he was responsible for defaulting on the Deed of Trust that recently sent the Subject Property into foreclosure.” (Opp. 3: 20-23.) They also dispute that the Agreement requires them “to make monthly, timely mortgage payments or ‘monthly maintenance expenses’ as claimed by Plaintiff.” (Opp. 3: 24-27.)

A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts. (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 810.) The relevant portion of the Agreement provides as follows:

In consideration of Defendants’ vacation of the Subject Property to Plaintiffs on or before August 31, 2022 and Defendants’ payment of all monthly maintenance expenses for the Subject Property through August 31, 2022 (including but not limited to the monthly payment for the Bank of America loan No 6593658096, Southern California Gas Company, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Los Angeles Trash Department), Plaintiffs agrees to dismiss their lawsuit against Defendants with Prejudice…

By signing the Agreement, Defendants expressly agreed that Plaintiffs would dismiss the lawsuit in consideration of “Defendants’ payment of all monthly maintenance expenses for the Subject Property through August 31, 2022 (including but not limited to the monthly payment for the Bank of America loan No 659365809…) (See Revised Gaugh Decl., Exh. A, p. 1.) Based on this language, it is immaterial that Plaintiff (and not Defendants) was listed as borrower on the mortgage, or that he was purportedly to blame for the default. Accordingly, even if Defendants would otherwise have no obligation to cover the loan payment, the settlement agreement requires that they do. Although Defendants may have been surprised to learn of the notice of default, this only demonstrates Defendants’ lack of diligence to investigate what was owed and paid under the Deed of the Trust before signing the settlement. This does not invalidate the Agreement.

The court also rejects Defendants’ argument that because the above term was not also included in the “Terms and Conditions” section of the Settlement Agreement, it caused “confusion as to what Defendants’ obligations actually entail.” (Opp. 8: 1-3.) “[N]othing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon. (Weddington Prods., Inc., supra, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 810.)

The relevant language here appears on the first page of the Settlement Agreement, in clear and unambiguous terms. Although it may have been safe practice to also include these terms elsewhere in the Settlement, the failure to do so does not make the Agreement ambiguous or invalid. Defendants present no authority suggesting otherwise.

Thus, this court finds that the Stipulation signed by all parties constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement. It also finds the parties unambiguously agreed that Defendants would cover all “monthly maintenance expenses,” including the monthly loan payment through August 31, 2022.

Accordingly, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. A judgment will be entered in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $70,000.00. Plaintiffs are to lodge a [Proposed] Judgment to be signed by this court.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.