We Got Good News Today on Waynes Court Case. It will be better once the courts sign the papers.... For everyone who has supported us here is the tentative ruling for monday Oct 5th 2014... This has been a long battle... almost 2 years of crap!!!!! YOU KNOW WHO VS. CAMPBELL Case Number: 177975 Tentative Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Enforcement of Settlement and Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Settlement Agreement: A settlement reached orally before the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 may be enforced until performance in full of its terms. Here, the parties attended a Mandatory Settlement Conference in this action on June 23, 2014. At the Mandatory Settlement Conference, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In consideration for plaintiff’s dismissal of the action, the parties agreed that 1) defendant would disavow any and all interest in the Irrevocable Family Trust of 2002; 2) the parties would agree to abide by a mutual no contact order; and 3) each side would bear their own costs and attorney fees. Attorney Brear was directed to prepare the final agreement. The Court personally examined each party on the record, was satisfied each party 2 understood and agreed to these terms, and explained to the parties that the Court would maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement pursuant to CCP Section 664.6. Attorney Brear complied with the Court’s directive and prepared a settlement agreement. For the dismissal portion of the agreement, he stated that dismissal of plaintiff’s action would be with prejudice. Plaintiff refused to execute the agreement, stating that it was her understanding from the Mandatory Settlement Conference that both sides were to release all of their claims arising from the subject matter of the case. Absent such a term in the final agreement, plaintiff refuses to execute the agreement and at most will only agree to a dismissal without prejudice. Attorney Brear refuses to accept plaintiff’s perspective on the terms agreed upon at the Mandatory Settlement Conference, and moves to compel plaintiff to execute the settlement agreement as he drafted it. Plaintiff has filed her own “motion” to vacate the settlement agreement. The Court considers each of these motions to be essentially one motion, opposed by each party. At the Mandatory Settlement Conference, plaintiff agreed to dismiss this entire action in consideration for the Defendant disavowing all interest in the Family Trust of 2002, a mutual stay away order and a mutual waiver of costs and fees. Plaintiff cannot now assert that she only intended to dismiss the action “without prejudice,” or conditional upon the defendant agreeing to dismiss other claims he did not even make in this case. The Court was and is satisfied that both parties fully and completely understood the very simple terms of this settlement, and the Court is satisfied that it afforded ample opportunity for both parties and counsel to fully, knowingly and intelligently engage in the settlement negotiations which culminated with a detailed discussion on the record where both parties acknowledged their understanding and agreement. Plaintiff’s contention that “there was no meeting of the minds” is simply disingenuous. The Court finds that both parties clearly understood that settlement on the basis of the above stated terms constituted a final and complete resolution of the dispute arising out of the Trust and that this matter would be dismissed ‘with prejudice’ such that there will be no further litigation between the parties arising out of the trust. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to dismiss this matter “with prejudice” in conjunction with both parties executing a settlement agreement embodying all of the other terms of the settlement. Defendant is not required to execute a dismissal with prejudice because he has no claims to dismiss; he did not file a cross complaint in this action. He is, however, required to execute a settlement agreement and release whereby he releases all interest in the Trust. To the extent either party is concerned that the other will sue for other matters arising out of their contentious relationship, this issue is not currently before the Court. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the settlement is DENIED. Counsel for the defendant is to prepare the order hereon. The Case Management Conference, scheduled for today’s date, is continued to Monday, November 17, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 3. No appearance is necessary on today’s case management calendar. Like
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 04:20:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015