Davis v. Nicholsen CA1/5
A161594
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 5, 2022Background
- Monica Davis owned a parcel with a deeded 20-foot access easement but for years used an existing paved roadway across adjacent property (including land owned by Hamilton Nicholsen and a parcel owned by Kelham Vineyards LLC) to reach Mund Road.
- Litigation followed (quiet title and related claims); the parties attended mandatory settlement conference and, on October 4–5, 2017, executed a written "Settlement Agreement" describing a 20-foot deeded easement to be amended to a metes-and-bounds description "along the existing right-of-way," cost-splitting, surveyor selection, mutual releases, and court retention under CCP § 664.6.
- Paragraph 8 required selection of a surveyor to complete a lot line adjustment; paragraph 11 required signing a final full-form settlement consistent with the terms. The parties filed a notice of settlement on October 6, 2017.
- After delays and disputes (including Davis’s refusal to cooperate in designating a surveyor), the trial court ordered Davis to retain a surveyor; Albion Surveys was retained, a merger of the Kelham parcel was done, defendant paid substantial fees, and the lot line adjustment was recorded in February 2020.
- Nicholsen moved to enforce the October 2017 Agreement under CCP § 664.6 when Davis refused to sign the final form; the trial court found a meeting of the minds and entered judgment enforcing the agreement. Davis appealed, arguing lack of an enforceable agreement and that the judgment impermissibly altered settlement terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (Nicholsen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability under CCP § 664.6 — meeting of the minds and certainty of material terms | No meeting of minds; key term (location of new easement) was never agreed and agreement was an "agreement to agree" | Agreement specified a 20‑ft easement "along the existing right‑of‑way," parties and surveyor acted under that procedure, so terms were sufficiently definite and performed | Court: Substantial evidence showed parties agreed that the new easement would follow the existing paved roadway; the settlement was enforceable under § 664.6 |
| Whether the agreement was unenforceable because a final, formal document was never signed | Paragraph 11 required a final full‑form binding agreement, so the October document was incomplete | The parties’ written settlement plus their conduct (selection/retention of surveyor, lot line work, payments) manifested intent to be bound despite later formalization | Court: The presence of a later formalization clause did not negate the enforceable contract; conduct and written terms were sufficient |
| Whether the judgment impermissibly altered settlement terms by incorporating exhibits (map/legal description) | Judgment’s Exhibit C (map) imposed a boundary Davis had not agreed to and therefore altered the settlement | Exhibits merely implemented the agreed procedure (survey and metes-and-bounds description) and reflected the parties’ agreed location | Court: Incorporation of the survey map and recorded legal description implemented—not added to—settlement terms and was permissible under § 664.6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc., 2 Cal.App.4th 884 (1992) (trial court may enter judgment enforcing a written settlement under § 664.6 and interpret settlement terms)
- Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick, 60 Cal.App.4th 793 (1998) (settlement agreements are contracts; courts may not add material terms but can interpret parties' agreement)
- In re Marriage of Assemi, 7 Cal.4th 896 (1994) (trial court assesses certainty of material terms and whether parties expressly agreed to be bound when enforcing settlements)
- Corkland v. Boscoe, 156 Cal.App.3d 989 (1984) (trial court may consider declarations and oral testimony in § 664.6 proceedings)
- Pope v. Babick, 229 Cal.App.4th 1238 (2014) (on appeal, record must be considered in full; appellant bears burden to show lack of substantial evidence)
- Okun v. Morton, 203 Cal.App.3d 805 (1988) (upholding enforcement where parties acted in strict accord with settlement provisions despite disputes)
- Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, 74 Cal.App.4th 299 (1999) (a later formal writing requirement does not necessarily negate an earlier enforceable agreement)