Machado v. Myers

• Decision Date: 16 August 2019
• Docket Number: D073824
• Citation: 39 Cal.App.5th 779,252 Cal.Rptr.3d 493
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Edward A. MACHADO, as Trustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Bryan P. MYERS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

39 Cal.App.5th 779

252 Cal.Rptr.3d 493

Edward A. MACHADO, as Trustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.Bryan P. MYERS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

D073824

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed August 16, 2019

Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, Arezoo Jamshidi, and Jessica S. Doidge, San Diego, for Defendants and Appellants.

Galuppo & Blake, Andrew E. Hall, and Daniel T. Watts, Carlsbad, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

GUERRERO, J.

Bryan and Jackie Myers (Appellants) appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for entry of judgment pursuant to the parties' stipulated settlement ( Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 ) and from a subsequent order denying their motion to set aside or vacate the judgment (id. , §§ 473, subd. (d), 663).¹ The settlement was intended to resolve a dispute between neighbors. Appellants contend the judgment does not conform to the terms of the parties' stipulated settlement, which was entered orally before the court. Edward and Zlaine Machado, as trustees of the Edward and Zlaine Machado Family Trust Dated June 30, 2003 (the Machados), plaintiffs below, contend Appellants' failure to comply with the terms of the settlement relieved them of their obligation to perform certain provisions originally contemplated in the parties' settlement, and thus the entry of a judgment modifying the original settlement terms was justified. We conclude that the judgment entered pursuant to section 664.6 erroneously fails to conform to the terms of the parties' stipulated settlement agreement. We therefore reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to enter a new judgment setting forth all the material terms of the parties' February 2, 2016 settlement agreement, as reflected in the record.²

FACTS

The case involves a dispute between neighbors. Their homes sit on adjacent lots that were once part of a single parcel which, when subdivided, did not account for a five-foot setback for a part of one home now owned by Appellants. The problematic property line has spawned a host of disputes between the neighbors involving encroaching tree roots and the placement of an air conditioning unit, fencing, and security cameras.

The Machados sued Appellants in 2014. The operative complaint asserts causes of action for nuisance, trespass, harassment, and violation of the right to privacy, among others. In February 2016, the case settled during a settlement conference on the eve of trial. The settlement terms were recited on the record, in open court. The parties acknowledged agreement to all terms.

The record reflects the following agreement:

"Number 1: [Air conditioning] unit on [Appellants'] property.

"1(a): [Appellants] will move the [air conditioning] unit from its current location to a location that is not on the east side of their property, north of the current back door, or the north side of their property.

"1(b): [Appellants] shall refrain from installing/operating other mechanical equipment in that area.

"1(c): The [Appellants] will move the [air conditioning] unit within 45 days at [Appellants'] expense.

"Number 2[:] Brazilian pepper trees.

"2(a): [Appellants] agree to remove the subject Brazilian pepper trees within 45 days at their expense.

[¶] ... [¶]

"Number 4: Solar panels. [¶] Plaintiffs shall remove the existing solar panels on their duplex roof within 30 days at their expense.

"Number 5: Fence.

[¶] ... [¶]

"5(b): Fence near [air conditioning] unit:

"5(b)(i): This fence shall remain in its present location pursuant to the License Agreement stated below.

"5(b)(ii): As part of plaintiffs' construction of the concrete block fence, plaintiffs will extend the wood fence to the location of the new block wall.

"5(b)(iii): The fence in this location is the property of the plaintiffs; however, [Appellants'] facing shall remain.

"Number 6: Surveillance Cameras: [¶] The [Appellants] agree to relocate the security cameras within 30 days at their expense in a manner so as not to give the appearance of pointing into the plaintiffs' property.

"Number 7: License Agreement:

"7(a): Plaintiffs and [Appellants] will enter into a License Agreement that the parties will record with the County and that will run with the land.

"7(a)(i): The License Agreement will allow [Appellants] and their successors to use plaintiffs' property near the current location of the [air conditioning] unit.

"7(a)(i)(1): The parties will attach a survey and legal description to the License Agreement in order to accurately show the subject area.

"7(a)(i)(2): Other than the current facing, [Appellants] shall refrain from attaching anything further to the existing fence.

"7(a)(i)(3): The License Agreement shall contain a mediation provision in connection with future disputes.

"7(a)(ii): The License Agreement will be revocable upon certain conditions[:] [ (]Counsel will meet and confer on these terms and others regarding revocability[.) ]

"7(a)(ii)(1): In the event [Appellants] or their successors install mechanical equipment in the subject area.

"7(a)(ii)(2): In the event [Appellants'] residence is demolished, improved, et cetera.

"7(a)(ii)(3): If City forces owner of [Appellants'] residence to remove the encroaching structure or conform with City setback requirements.

"And these are all things that counsel will meet and confer on as we prepare the License[ ] Agreement.

"7(a)(ii)(4)[:] other conditions that the counsel and the parties will meet and confer on in preparing the License Agreement.

"7(a)(ii)(5)[:] standard terms and conditions will be included.

"Number 8: The [Appellants'] payment to plaintiffs.

"8(a): [Appellants], through their insurance carrier, shall make payment to plaintiffs in the amount of $7500 within 30 days.

"Number 9: Upon completion of the settlement terms:

"9(a)[:] Machados, plaintiffs, will dismiss their First Amended Complaint with prejudice within 30 days upon execution of the settlement agreement.

"[9](b)[:] The parties will mutually release one another from all further claims regarding any of the currently existing conditions on the property.

[¶] ... [¶] "9(f)[:] [E]ach attorney [sic] shall bear its own attorney's fees and costs.

"9(g)[:] The court shall retain jurisdiction under 664.6 to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement."

Each party and their attorneys acknowledged on the record they understood and agreed to be bound by these settlement terms. The Machados' counsel expressly acknowledged the agreement that each party would bear its own attorney fees and costs and agreed to waive a previously submitted cost bill.

The settlement, unfortunately, did not end the neighbors' dispute. In June, the Machados moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order to prevent Appellants from continuing to operate the air conditioner, which had not been moved despite Appellants' commitment to do so in the settlement. The court denied the ex parte application but set a date to hear a motion to enforce the settlement.

The Machados moved to "compel compliance with [the] settlement agreement" under section 664.6.³ In support of their motion, they submitted a proposed judgment which generally tracked the terms of the parties' oral settlement agreement, as reflected in the record. An introductory paragraph of the proposed judgment stated Appellants had violated the agreement: "[The parties' oral settlement] agreement required [Appellants] to act within 45 days to relocate an air conditioning unit on their property, a legal description of which follows. [Appellants] did not so act, and thus violated the settlement agreement. [Appellants] also failed to relocate one or more security cameras, ... and failed to cease operation of the air conditioning unit, constituting additional violations of the agreement."

Appellants did not oppose the Machados' section 664.6 motion. However, they filed a "notice of compliance with settlement terms," signed by their attorney, which stated that the subject trees had been removed, the air conditioning unit had been relocated, the security cameras had been repositioned, and the $7,500 payment had been made, all pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.⁴

After hearing argument on the motion, the trial court took the matter under submission.⁵ In August, the trial court granted the motion under section 664.6. In a minute order, the court found the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement on the record and Appellants "did not abide by the terms of the settlement." The minute order did not identify the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, nor did it direct the parties to submit a judgment. The court did not enter judgment at that time.

In November, the parties filed status reports. Appellants represented that the parties' obligations under the settlement agreement had been met, with the exception of reaching an agreement on the terms of the license agreement. The Machados, however, averred that Appellants continued to violate the settlement agreement and engaged in "acts of contempt." In particular, the Machados averred that two security cameras still gave the appearance of being pointed toward the Machados' house; Appellants had erected a 9 foot high, 40 foot long canvas barrier between the properties; and Appellants had improved their residence by installing a patio cover and awnings, an automatic sliding driveway gate, a new front door with surrounding new windows, a new front gate, and a new side-yard fence. The Machados argued that these improvements triggered their ability to revoke any license agreement. Finally, the Machados reported that it was Appellants' fault the parties had so far failed to execute a recordable license agreement because Appellants refused to confer in good faith regarding additional conditions upon which the Machados could revoke the license agreement.

The parties appeared for a status conference. Although no transcript of the conference appears in the record, a minute order reflects that the court conferred "wit...