Critzer

Critzer v. Enos

Good Law
115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203·187 Cal. App. 4th 1242·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1517
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2010H033913California8,409 words

Opinion

Opinion

Duffy, J.

David and Margaret Critzer, owners of a townhome in a Cupertino project known as Northpoint, and their neighbor, Jerry Enos, had a dispute concerning a window installed in Enos’s upstairs bathroom in February 2004. The Critzers ultimately brought suit against Enos, Darien A. Tung (Enos’s successor in interest), and Northpoint Homeowners Association (HOA). After it was assigned out to trial, the lawsuit was purportedly settled in January 2008, and its terms were recited on the record. Three of the five parties gave their personal consent in court to the purported settlement. Months later, after the parties reached an impasse concerning the appropriate language for a formal written agreement, the HOA brought a motion to enforce settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court initially entered an order denying the Crtizers’ request to insert three conditions in a formal agreement; requiring the parties to exchange language for a written agreement; and indicating that if the parties could not agree, it would select the appropriate settlement agreement from draft agreements submitted by the parties. After the parties were unable to reach an accord concerning…

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.