Howeth v. Coffelt, D072136

Background

Neighbors Joseph and Monique Howeth and Tina Coffelt share a driveway governed by a recorded reciprocal easement prohibiting parking in the easement area; disputes arose over parking and other conduct.
The Howeths sued Coffelt for injunctive relief; at a mandatory settlement conference the parties reached an oral settlement and stipulated to entry of a consent judgment reflecting agreed restrictions and procedures.
The settlement imposed a $500 fine for violations, but provided that if an enforcement action were required the fine would be $1,000 and the prevailing party could recover attorney fees; the parties also stated the judgment would be "enforceable via contempt proceedings on an expedited basis."
Several months after entry of the stipulated judgment, the Howeths filed a postjudgment motion seeking an "interim money judgment" for $12,000 (12 alleged violations) plus fees and costs, based on alleged postjudgment breaches.
The trial court denied the motion, holding it lacked continuing jurisdiction to entertain the motion and that the proper remedy was a new breach-of-contract action; the Howeths appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the postjudgment order denying the Howeths' motion is an appealable "order after judgment" under CCP § 904.1(a)(2)	The order is appealable as an order made after judgment permitting enforcement of the stipulated judgment	The underlying consent judgment was nonappealable; the motion sought to enforce the settlement (not the judgment), so the order is not appealable	Appeal dismissed: order is not appealable because it was entered after a nonappealable consent judgment and did not affect or enforce that judgment
Whether any exception (e.g., Ruiz or water-rights cases) makes the order appealable	The judgment contemplated ongoing enforcement and review, so postjudgment enforcement rulings are appealable	No exception applies: settlement did not reserve a discrete unresolved issue nor involve water rights	Exceptions do not apply; Ruiz-type reservation of a discrete issue is absent, and water-rights exception is inapplicable
Whether CCP § 664.6 permits the trial court to retain jurisdiction to summarily enforce settlement terms for new postjudgment disputes	Section 664.6 allows retention of jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms, so court could entertain the motion	§ 664.6 is intended for enforcement where dismissal would otherwise deprive court of jurisdiction; it does not authorize summary adjudication of new breach claims post-judgment	§ 664.6 does not authorize summary enforcement here; motion sought damages/new breach claims requiring ordinary litigation protections
Whether contempt or other summary postjudgment relief could award the requested fines	Howeths invoked contempt power as enforcement route and sought money judgment via postjudgment motion	Contempt cannot award damages of the sort requested; fines/damages for breach require a separate action with procedural protections	The motion sought damages (not proper in contempt) and therefore was not a permissible postjudgment enforcement mechanism

Key Cases Cited

City of Gardena v. Rikuo Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 595 (consent judgments intended to fully and finally resolve disputes are nonappealable)
Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (definition and effect of consent/settled judgments)
Water Replenishment Dist. v. City of Cerritos, 202 Cal.App.4th 1063 (water-rights cases may be excepted from Gardena rule)
Ruiz v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau, 222 Cal.App.4th 596 (reservation of a discrete issue for later court determination can make a postjudgment order appealable)
Lakin v. Watkins Assocs. Indus., 6 Cal.4th 644 (postjudgment order must affect or relate to judgment to be appealable)
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com’n, 25 Cal.4th 688 (final judgment terminates trial court proceedings and completely disposes of the matter)