Epstein

Epstein v. DeDomenico

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 1149·224 Cal. App. 3d 1243·274 Cal. Rptr. 521
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 30, 1990A048047California1,500 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chin, J.

Joan and William Epstein (the Epsteins) appeal from a judgment enforcing a settlement reached at a court-supervised settlement conference. They contend that enforcement of the settlement was improper because their consent was obtained by coercion on the part of their attorney. In the published portion of this opinion, we find that the Epsteins waived their right to appeal by accepting the benefit of the settlement; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Facts

The appellate record is limited because this appeal arises out of a court-supervised settlement conference. However, certain facts are not disputed in the briefs. We treat those facts as true for purposes of this appeal, even though they are not established by record.

In 1985, the Epsteins bought an apartment building in Pacifica from respondent William DeDomenico (DeDomenico). The sale was brokered at least in part by respondent Cold well Banker Commercial Group, Inc., through its employees, respondents Darryle Isaac and Dennis Lanterman. The Epsteins became unhappy with their purchase, and in 1987 they filed suit against respondents. At some point, DeDomenico apparently initiated foreclosure proceedings against the…

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.