City of Fresno v. Maroot
Decision Date | 09 February 1987 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CITY OF FRESNO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles J. MAROOT, Jr. et al., Defendants and Respondents. F006238. |
James A. McKelvey, City Atty., Edwin A. Oeser, Asst. City Atty., and Jesse J. Avila, Deputy City Atty., Fresno, for plaintiff and appellant.
Herman H. Fitzgerald, Burlingame, for defendants and respondents.
GEO. A. BROWN, Presiding Justice.
This is the second appeal in this eminent domain case. In the first appeal we reversed a summary judgment in favor of Charles J. Maroot, Jr. and Judith Ann Maroot (Maroot) enforcing a purported settlement agreement between the City of Fresno (City) and the landowners, Maroot. The nonpublished opinion is numbered F002200.
The purported settlement agreement provided for the payment by the City to the landowners, Maroot, of $315,000 for the damages suffered by Maroot by reason of the condemnation of their property, which included a restaurant known as Jon Jon's. A dispute developed concerning whether the sum provided to be paid included fixtures.
In the former appeal the ground for reversal of the summary judgment was that the trial court erred in refusing to consider certain declarations filed by the parties concerning the disputed points. We also observed, "once the declarations are taken into consideration, as a matter of law they create issues of fact as to the meaning and intent of the parties which can only be resolved by a trier of fact." Since factual issues cannot be resolved in a motion for summary judgment, we reversed.
When the case went back to the superior court, Maroot moved for a judgment to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.61. 2
The motion was grounded upon the identical transcription of the agreement taken down by the certified shorthand reporter at the depositions of Charles J. Maroot, Jr. and Judith Ann Maroot and upon the same declarations that had been submitted as part of the previous summary judgment motion.
The section 664.6 motion was granted, and judgment was entered in favor of Maroot and against the City. The City's second appeal followed.
FACTS
As a step in preparation of the case the City set the depositions of Charles J. Maroot, Jr. and Judith Ann Maroot. Before commencement of the depositions, settlement negotiations were entered into between the City and Maroot through their respective attorneys, Mr. Bacigalupi and Mr. Fitzgerald. Following the negotiations, counsel attempted to memorialize the agreement by reciting the terms to a court reporter who was present for the scheduled depositions. The relevant portion of the proceedings reads as follows:
disagree with how that is in [sic ] interpreted.
Subsequently, Mr. Bacigalupi mailed to Mr. Fitzgerald a written stipulation which he believed accurately represented the settlement. This stipulation stated in relevant part:
Maroot did not sign the stipulation.
The declarations filed by the respective parties indicate disagreement as to the provisions of the agreement, particularly as to whether the settlement included fixtures.
In granting Maroot's section 664.6 motion for judgment, the trial court stated:
DISCUSSION
By its express terms, section 664.6 requires a stipulation in writing or orally before the court for settlement of the case. Since the stipulation in this case was not entered into before the court, the stipulation in writing provision governs. Therefore, determinative of the case is whether the unsigned stipulation entered at the time of the depositions and reduced to writing by a certified shorthand reporter satisfies the provisions of section 664.6. 3 We hold that the stipulation does not meet the requirements of section 664.6.
Datatronic Systems Corp. v. Speron, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1168, 222 Cal.Rptr. 658 involved a very similar situation and held that an unsigned court reporter's transcript of a settlement agreement taken at the time of a deposition does not satisfy...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Assemi, In re
...minimize the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the stipulation or its effect. (See City of Fresno v. Maroot (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 755, 761-762, 234 Cal.Rptr. 353; Datatronic Systems Corp. v. Speron, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1168, 1174, 222 Cal.Rptr. 658.) A section 664.6 motio......
-
Levy v. Superior Court, S035538
...decisions, Datatronic Systems Corp. v. Speron, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1168, 1175, 222 Cal.Rptr. 658 and City of Fresno v. Maroot (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 755, 762, 234 Cal.Rptr. 353. (Gallo, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 333, 252 Cal.Rptr. 193.) The Gallo holding was followed in Nicholson v.......
-
Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick
...of the settlement. (See In re Marriage of Assemi, [1994], 7 Cal.4th at p. 905 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 265, 872 P.2d 1190]; City of Fresno v. Maroot, [1987], 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 762 ; Datatronic Systems Corp. v. Speron, Inc., [1986] 176 Cal.App.3d [1168] at p. 1174 .) It also protects parties from ......
-
In re Marriage of Armato
...(1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 584-585, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 896 P.2d 171, citations omitted, italics added; see City of Fresno v. Maroot (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 755, 762, 234 Cal.Rptr. 353 ["section 664.6 is an expedient and cost effective means of enforcing a settlement Similarly, with respect to mo......