Oral Settlement Agreements and Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6
**UNPUBLISHED**
During a mandatory settlement conference in a divorce proceeding, wife was unrepresented but brought along two friends. The judge met separately with husband and his lawyer, then with wife and her two friends. Husband presented a proposed judgment containing terms that he claimed wife had initially agreed to. Once back in the courtroom, the judge recited a list of terms that the parties had supposedly agreed to. Wife did not say much. The judge instructed husband's attorney to write up the terms, and set a further conference. However, wife filed a motion for reconsideration, and so the judge just set the matter for trial. However, before trial could commence, husband filed a motion under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6 to enforce a settlement he claims was "reached in open court" during the initial settlement conference. Wife opposed the motion, denying that she had agreed. During the hearing, the judge claimed that wife had agreed to the terms but wanted time to determine if she could refinance the family home. Wife denied this. Judge granted the motion to enforce the agreement. Wife now appeals.
Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, if parties stipulate to an agreement orally before a court for settlement of the case, the court may enter a judgement pursuant to the terms of the settlement upon motion if supported by substantial evidence. Here, husband doesn't argue that wife agreed. Rather, he claims she accepted the contract by her conduct of accepting the benefits of the judgement. The Court of Appeal finds, however, that this isn't enough to evidence consent under Conservatorship of McElroy. Even wife's statements in open court did not rise to the level of unambiguous oral assent. There is also evidence that the Court knew the agreement was only tentative, but enforced it anyway.
Case: Marriage of Siegrist
Court: San Bernardino County
Judge: David Williams
NOT CITEABLE
During a mandatory settlement conference in a divorce proceeding, wife was unrepresented but brought along two friends. The judge met separately with husband and his lawyer, then with wife and her two friends. Husband presented a proposed judgment containing terms that he claimed wife had initially agreed to. Once back in the courtroom, the judge recited a list of terms that the parties had supposedly agreed to. Wife did not say much. The judge instructed husband's attorney to write up the terms, and set a further conference. However, wife filed a motion for reconsideration, and so the judge just set the matter for trial. However, before trial could commence, husband filed a motion under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6 to enforce a settlement he claims was "reached in open court" during the initial settlement conference. Wife opposed the motion, denying that she had agreed. During the hearing, the judge claimed that wife had agreed to the terms but wanted time to determine if she could refinance the family home. Wife denied this. Judge granted the motion to enforce the agreement. Wife now appeals.
Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6, if parties stipulate to an agreement orally before a court for settlement of the case, the court may enter a judgement pursuant to the terms of the settlement upon motion if supported by substantial evidence. Here, husband doesn't argue that wife agreed. Rather, he claims she accepted the contract by her conduct of accepting the benefits of the judgement. The Court of Appeal finds, however, that this isn't enough to evidence consent under Conservatorship of McElroy. Even wife's statements in open court did not rise to the level of unambiguous oral assent. There is also evidence that the Court knew the agreement was only tentative, but enforced it anyway.
Case: Marriage of Siegrist
Court: San Bernardino County
Judge: David Williams
NOT CITEABLE
Labels: civil procedure 664.6, divorce, oral settlement agreement
<< Home