Hastings

Hastings v. Matlock

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 3d 826·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2456·217 Cal. Rptr. 856
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 28, 1985A017480California5,029 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brauer, J.

Betty and Donald Matlock appeal from a judgment awarding respondents Carolyn and Doyle Hastings specific performance of an oral out-of-court settlement agreement. The Matlocks make six claims of error, which in essence run thus:

We find these contentions to be without merit, and therefore affirm the judgment.

I. History

A. Events Before Trial

On September 24, 1976, the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the Matlocks agreed to buy, and the Hastings agreed to sell, (a) a two-and-one-half acre parcel of land, and (b) a four-bedroom house to be constructed on the parcel by Mr. Hastings, a licensed contractor. The total purchase price was to be $206,800. The contract provided in part: “If any party to this agreement, including broker, shall institute any legal action against any other party to this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to any other judgment of the court.”

An escrow was opened, and a deed to the parcel was placed therein. While the house was under construction, the Matlocks paid the Hastings $50,000. The Matlocks also paid, outside the terms of the contract, the sum of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.