 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bias v. Wright11/15/2002
ntative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. . . ." (ยง 473, subd. (b).)
Zamora does not support Wright's position. In Zamora, our Supreme Court held the trial court properly vacated the judgment entered under section 998. (Zamora, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 260-261.) The offer in Zamora contained a clerical mistake where the word "against" was erroneously substituted for the phrase "in favor of." (Id. at pp. 252, 259.) The offer was accepted and judgment entered. (Id. at p. 252.) A reading of Zamora demonstrates that the case addresses motions to vacate under section 473. There was no motion to vacate in this case.
Finally, Zamora was based on the premise that a clerical mistake could not give life to an unauthorized offer. (Zamora, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 260.) Here, the judgment was erroneously entered because it did not satisfy the requirements of section 998 and Civil Code section 1585. The results in Zamora and this case are consistent. Both support a policy underlying section 998 - settlements must reflect the actual agreements of the parties. (See also DeRose v. Heurlin (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 158, 179.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. Bias shall recover her costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
ARONSON, J.
|