Rael v. Davis
Decision Date | 24 September 2008 |
Docket Number | No. B197971.,No. B200217.,B197971.,B200217. |
Citation | 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745,166 Cal.App.4th 1608 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CRUZ CARDENAS RAEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID M. DAVIS, Defendant and Respondent; CRUZ CARDENAS RAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID M. DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Tyre Kamins Katz & Granof, Leah Phillips Falzone; Palarz & Williams and Herman S. Palarz for Plaintiff and Appellant and for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brown and Associates and Matthew C. Brown for Defendant and Respondent and for Defendant and Appellant.
In consolidated appeals, plaintiff/appellant Cruz Cardenas Rael contends the trial court erred in excluding as inadmissible a document prepared in the course of a mediation, and finding the purported agreement unenforceable as not signed by all parties.1 She contends that promises made by one of the parties to the agreement were severable and separately enforceable. In his appeal, defendant/respondent/appellant David M. Davis contends that the trial court erred in refusing to award attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.
We conclude that the trial court did not err in excluding the agreement and finding it unenforceable. We thus affirm the judgment. We also affirm the trial court's denial of attorney fees, as no statutory exception to mediation confidentiality permits application of Civil Code section 1717.
In 2005, Cruz Cardenas Rael commenced this action for breach of contract against Davis as the executor of the estate of her deceased husband, Tony G. Rael, Jr., and as the successor trustee of the Rael Family 1993 Inter Vivos Trust.2 The complaint alleged that Tony G. Rael, Jr., died in 2003, and that prior to his death, he participated in a mediation regarding the distribution of his assets after his death with Cruz Cardenas Rael and Tony's children— Mark Rael, Julianne Christina Rael-Duch and Yolanda Southern.3 On April 24, 2002, the mediation allegedly resulted in a settlement, memorialized in a written settlement agreement. It was alleged that under the settlement agreement, Tony promised to exercise his power of appointment in favor of Cruz, so that she would receive one-third the assets of his estate, rather than the bequests given to her under Tony's preexisting will and living trust. The complaint alleged that Tony breached the agreement by failing to amend the trust instrument in the manner promised. The complaint alleged that on March 12, 2004, Cruz filed a creditor's claim, and served the claim on Davis, the executor of Tony's will and successor trustee of the trust, but Davis failed to abide by the terms of the alleged written contract. The complaint prayed for damages equal to one-third the estate's assets, due to Tony's alleged breach of contract, and for costs and attorney fees.
In his answer to the complaint, Davis denied the formation and enforceability of the alleged settlement agreement or any obligation under it, and objected to the discovery and admissibility of the agreement pursuant to Evidence Code section 1119.4
The case was tried October 23, 24 and 25, 2006, and the court filed its statement of decision January 12, 2007. Because the court filed a statement of decision and Cruz does not contend the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's findings, we are bound by the court's factual findings set forth in the statement.5 We therefore quote them at length.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Adhav v. Midway Rent A Car, Inc.
- Masters v. Ries
-
Underground Constr. Co. v. City of Oakland
... ... [¶] (b) The agreement provides that it is enforceable or binding or words to that effect ... ' " ( Rael v. Davis (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1608, 1619.) In the present case, the settlement agreement both was signed by representatives of all parties, and ... ...
- Stone v. Byers
-
Table of cases
...Raedeke v. Gibralter Savings and Loan Association (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 665, 111 Cal. Rptr. 693, §§2:10, 4:60 Rael v. Davis (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 1608, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745, §10:170 Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 182, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41, §18:20 Raley, People v......
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...against a party who neither signed the disclosure agreement nor authorized counsel to sign on their behalf. Rael v. Davis (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 1608, 1621, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745. A mediator is prohibited from submitting any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation or finding to the ......