Haldeman v. Boise Cascade
| Decision Date | 30 December 1985 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jean HALDEMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOISE CASCADE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. F001530. |
Morgan, Ruby, Teter, Schofield, Franich & Fredkin and Allen Ruby, San Jose, for plaintiff and appellant.
Sandell, Young & St. Louis, Wild, Carter, Tipton & Oliver, Brad B. Geery, Chinello, Chinello, Shelton & Auchard, Daniel I. Aller, III, Fresno, Barr, Newlan & Sinclair, Steven P. Hale, Redding, Parichan, Renberg, Crossman & Harvey, Richard C. Crossman, Fresno, Silveira, Garrett, Goul, Curry & Mattos, Weldon J. Mattos, Jr., Merced, Stammer, McKnight, Barnum & Bailey, Frank D. Maul, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc., Oakland, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Walsh, Paynter & Brown, Inc., Fresno, Lee M. Jacobson, Carl Brown, Oakland, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Mario L. Beltramo, Jr., Mushines, Baradat & Van Doren, Dominic P. Mushines, Fresno, Isham, Macias, Lynch, Cronin & Rodriguez, Richard M. Macias, Visalia, Kroloff, Belcher, Smart, Perry & Christopherson and Christopher Engh, Stockton, for defendants and respondents.
Appellant, Jean Haldeman, appeals from an order compelling enforcement of a judicially Following a multiple vehicle accident occurring on Highway 99 in Merced County, numerous complaints for damages for personal injuries were filed by various plaintiffs against various defendants. Ultimately, the various actions were consolidated and a settlement conference was held on February 2 and 5, 1982, before Judge Donald R. Fretz of the Merced County Superior Court. Appellant was present with her attorney, Mr. Daniel H. Asturias, at the start of the settlement conference on February 2 but was permitted to return home to be available by telephone. Appellant did not attend the February 5 conference but again was available by telephone.
supervised settlement agreement. We will affirm and remand with directions.
At 5:30 p.m. on February 5, the attorneys announced that a settlement had been reached, and the settlement was placed on the record. Except in one case, the plaintiffs in all of the actions were to receive an aggregate sum of $193,000 from all of the defendants. The total sum was to be divided among the plaintiffs, with plaintiff Jean Haldeman to receive $9,500. The allocated sums were to be considered a full settlement of all pending claims with prejudice, and plaintiffs were to dismiss suits upon receipt of the funds. Mr. Mushines, counsel for defendant Razarri Ford, agreed to prepare one release naming all defendants, which would be signed by all plaintiffs. The money was to be made payable to Mr. Nelson, counsel for plaintiff Robert Weatherford, as trustee of the settlement funds. When Nelson received all releases and dismissals from plaintiffs, he would disperse the monies collected from defendants.
After the settlement was placed on the record, the trial court polled the attorneys to see if the settlement as stated represented the actual agreement. Each attorney answered in the affirmative, including Mr. Asturias on behalf of plaintiff Haldeman.
On May 7, 1982, Mr. Nelson sent a letter to all counsel involved in the lawsuit, indicating that he had received all settlement funds from defendants and had received releases from all plaintiffs except Jean Haldeman who refused to sign the release. Thereafter, a motion to compel enforcement of the settlement was filed by defendant Razarri Ford and joined in by various other defendants.
The motion to compel enforcement was heard before Judge Fretz on May 26, 1982. Mrs. Haldeman and Mr. Asturias testified at the hearing. Mrs. Haldeman had asked Mr. Terry Allen to represent her at the hearing.
Mr. Asturias testified that at the settlement conference he advised the court that he agreed Mrs. Haldeman's case could be settled for $9,500. He also stated that he had "authority from Miss Haldeman to settle the case at that figure." The defendants had made a final offer to settle at $9,500, so at 6 or 6:30 p.m. on February 5, he called Mrs. Haldeman. Initially she was not pleased with the offer, but after he explained the complications of the case to her, she indicated to him to "do what you think is best in the case." Mr. Asturias, then, settled the case at $9,500. On cross-examination, Mr. Asturias testified that prior to the settlement conference Mrs. Haldeman wished to settle the case for $20,000 or $25,000. However, he felt the amount was unreasonable and discussed the figure with her, but no final settlement figure was agreed upon prior to the conference.
Mrs. Haldeman, on the other hand, testified that she never gave Mr. Asturias authority to settle her case for any amount under $20,000. In the early evening of February 5, Mr. Asturias called her with the settlement offer of $9,500. Mrs. Haldeman testified she told him the figure was not enough. He then asked her if she would be by her phone that evening. She further testified that he called her two or three hours later and said the offer was $10,000. She replied the figure was not enough, and he told her that she would not be able to get anything higher. She finally stated that she never gave him authority to settle for an amount he thought was appropriate.
The trial court ultimately ruled the attorney had the authority to settle the case for
Mrs. Haldeman, and that the settlement was arrived at properly. It then ordered that the settlement would be enforced.
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 1 was enacted in 1981 and became effective January 1, 1982. It provides, "If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in writing or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement." The procedure followed in this case was in accord with section 664.6. Appellant contends, however, that section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Superior Court, S035538
...conflicting decisions on this issue. The first decision to interpret the term "parties" in section 664.6 was Haldeman v. Boise Cascade (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 230, 221 Cal.Rptr. 412. In that case, the Court of Appeal interpreted the term "parties" to mean the litigants as well as their attorn......
-
Davidson v. Superior Court
...to rescind the stipulation and order. Counsel for the city called the court's attention to this court's decision in Haldeman v. Boise Cascade (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 230 , in which we pointed out that an authorized signature of an attorney can bind that attorney's client to a written settleme......
-
Johnson v. Department of Corrections
...of the Courts of Appeal. (Levy, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 581-582, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 896 P.2d 171.) In Haldeman v. Boise Cascade (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 230, 221 Cal.Rptr. 412, a case involving an oral settlement agreement by attorneys for the parties, the court enforced the agreement, notin......
-
Diaz v. May, A057672
...themselves or whether the oral or written stipulation may be by the parties' attorneys. In Haldeman v. Boise Cascade (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 230, 221 Cal.Rptr. 412 (hereafter Haldeman ), counsel for all parties reached, at a judicially supervised settlement conference, an oral on-the-record s......