Ames

Ames v. Paley

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 515·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 404·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5405·89 Cal. App. 4th 668·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4413
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 30, 2001No. B137620California2,044 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Klein, J.

Defendant and appellant Stephen Paley (Paley) appeals a postjudgment order in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Martha Rose Ames, Rose J. Schurter, as trustee of the Rose J. Schurter Revocable Trust, and Rojo Corporation (hereafter plaintiffs), modifying the judgment so as to make interest thereon retroactive.

The essential issue presented is whether the trial court had the inherent power to modify the judgment to correct an omitted term pertaining to the date Paley’s promissory note obligation would commence.

*670 In granting the earlier motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, 1 the trial court intended to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, to the extent the judgment failed to conform to the terms of the settlement agreement, the trial court retained the inherent power to correct the judgment at any time nunc pro tunc. Therefore, the postjudgment modification order is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Resolution of underlying dispute by mediation culminating in settlement agreement.

Paley was a passive investor in various partnerships operated by Nathan Brenner…

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.