39 Cal.App.5th 779
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Neighbors (Machados v. Myers) litigated various tort claims arising from property-line encroachments; trial set and parties settled orally on the record February 2, 2016.
- Material settlement terms recited on record: Myers to relocate an air-conditioning unit within 45 days; remove Brazilian pepper trees; relocate surveillance cameras; Machados to remove certain solar panels; parties to execute a recorded license agreement running with the land (with specified revocation conditions and a mediation clause); $7,500 payment to Machados; mutual release; each side to bear its own fees; court to retain jurisdiction under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.
- Machados moved under § 664.6 to enforce the settlement; court granted the motion in August 2016.
- In December 2017 Machados applied for entry of judgment; submitted a proposed judgment that omitted the license agreement and several other terms and characterized Myers as having breached; the court entered that judgment seven days later.
- Myers moved to set aside/vacate the judgment under § 473(d) (clerical/void-judgment relief) and § 663 (vacatur for erroneous legal basis); the trial court denied relief. Myers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Machados' Argument | Myers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of the entered "stipulated" judgment | The judgment is a stipulated/consent judgment and not appealable | The judgment exceeds the parties' stipulation and is appealable | Judgment is appealable because substance controls over the label; it departs from the oral settlement so it is not a true consent judgment. |
| Validity of the parties' oral settlement under § 664.6 | Settlement was valid and enforceable; court correctly granted § 664.6 motion | Agreed the settlement existed; raised issues about subsequent compliance and scope | Court properly found a binding oral settlement with sufficiently definite material terms and did not err in granting the § 664.6 enforcement motion. |
| Whether the judgment entered conformed to the parties' settlement and court's § 664.6 authority | Judgment correctly explained performed/unperformed terms and resolved disputes about performance | Judgment materially altered and omitted terms (e.g., license, solar panels, fee allocation, court retention) and thus exceeded § 664.6 authority | Judgment did not conform to the oral settlement; court exceeded its limited § 664.6 power by omitting/modifying material terms — reversal required. |
| Appropriate postjudgment relief: § 473(d) clerical/void vs § 663 vacatur for legal error | The judgment reflected prior findings and was proper; opposition to relief | Relief under § 473(d) not available because differences were judicial (intentional), but § 663 applies because judgment rested on erroneous legal basis not supported by uncontroverted facts | Denial under § 473(d) was correct (errors were judicial, not clerical); but Myers was entitled to relief under § 663 and the trial court abused its discretion in denying that relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Board of Education, 126 Cal.App.4th 1161 (2004) (trial court may not add, modify, or impose terms differing from parties' settlement under § 664.6)
- Osumi v. Sutton, 151 Cal.App.4th 1355 (2007) (judge may decide disputed facts and enter agreed terms but cannot create material settlement terms)
- Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC, 236 Cal.App.4th 1367 (2015) (court cannot add to or modify express settlement terms when approving § 664.6 judgment)
- Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, 60 Cal.App.4th 793 (1998) (section 664.6 does not authorize a judge to create settlement terms beyond those agreed by parties)
- Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito, 72 Cal.App.4th 1 (1999) (§ 663 proper remedy when judgment is based on incorrect legal application to uncontroverted facts)
- Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co., 67 Cal.App.4th 1228 (1998) (distinguishes clerical errors from judicial errors; § 473 relief limited to clerical mistakes or void judgments)
- In re Marriage of Goddard, 33 Cal.4th 49 (2004) (distinguishes void judgments from voidable ones; acting in excess of power yields voidable, not void, judgment)
- Jones v. World Life Research Inst., 60 Cal.App.3d 836 (1976) (stipulation/contract interpretation rules apply; court may not insert terms or make new stipulations for parties)