Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc.

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 4th 30·126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4861·2002 Daily Journal DAR 12319·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10661
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 24, 2002B152582California2,181 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

Appellants signed documents agreeing to dismiss these actions and release their claims against respondents and another defendant in exchange for the payment of money. Those documents, which were prepared by one of the respondents’ attorneys, did not call for any signatures other than appellants’, nor did they specify who was obligated to make the payments on which the agreements were conditioned. When no payment was forthcoming, appellants gave notice that they were withdrawing their agreement to settle. Several months later, respondents attempted to tender payment, which appellants refused.

Respondents subsequently moved for settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (hereafter section 664.6), contending that the documents at issue were enforceable as written settlement agreements. After appellants pointed out that the documents were not signed by the parties as required by that section, one of the respondents simply added its signature to the end of both documents. The trial court granted respondents’ motions, and entered judgment accordingly.

We agree with appellants that the documents they signed are not enforceable as settlement agreements under section…

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.

Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. · Court of Appeal of California · 2002 | Caselegis