Trial Court Erred By Ruling It Could Not Grant Equitable Remedies In Motion Under Section 664.6.
Plaintiff Mathis settled with defendants by agreeing to purchase property from defendants for $1M, with escrow to close in 120 days. The trial court dismissed the underlying case, while retaining jurisdiction under that convenient device, Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., section 664.6, to enforce the settlement. Mathis moved to enforce the settlement agreement asking the trial court to grant equitable relief modifying escrow terms by extending the date of closing, and by assigning the property to a nominee. The trial judge denied the motion, ruling it had no jurisdiction to modify the settlement agreement, and Mathis appealed. Mathis v. Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc., et al., E063868 (4/2 9/7/17) (Ramirez, Miller, Slough) (unpublished).
"While this was not an unreasonable reading of the statutory language, it was incorrect under established case law. On a motion to enforce a settlement under section 664.6, a trial court has jurisdiction 'to provide any appropriate equitable remedy,'" explained the Court, relying on Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 230 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1061-1062 (2014).
Because the trial court has the power to grant equitable relief when enforcing a motion brought under section 664.6, upon remand, the trial judge will have to consider whether it is appropriate to provide the requested relief.
BEST LINE IN THE OPINION: "[D]efendants pick up the scent of Mathis's red herring and run off after it."
Herman Bencke, lithographer. Library of Congress.
Comments