OSUMI

OSUMI v. Sutton

Good Law
151 Cal. App. 4th 1355·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 960·60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 2007B191204California1,932 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it. In ruling on a motion to enforce settlement, it necessarily has the power to resolve factual disputes relating to the agreement. Here, for example, it has the power to extend the deadline for performance in favor of a party who is not at fault and against a party who is at fault.

Michael Osumi (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s orders granting Bill Sutton’s (Respondent) motion to enforce their settlement agreement, denying Appellant’s motion to enforce the same agreement, awarding Respondent attorney fees and denying Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of those rulings. We affirm.

Facts

Appellant bought a house from Respondent in 2001. He later sued for breach of contract and other causes of action arising out of alleged defects in the construction of the house. The parties reached a settlement, which they placed on the record during a hearing on October 31, 2005, and memorialized in a written “stipulation for resolution and dismissal” filed the same day. The settlement agreement required Respondent to buy the house…

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.