 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salyer v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
hubert v. Reynolds (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [we uphold the decision of the trial court if it is correct on any ground].) The answer lies in Anaheim's response to the motions for good faith settlement determination that 396 filed in August 2000.
396 filed three motions for good faith settlement determination, one pertaining to each of the three sliding scale settlement agreements. 396 served Anaheim with a copy of each motion, on August 18, 2000. Anaheim filed an opposition to the three motions. In that opposition, Anaheim stated that, in general, it had "no objection to this settlement structure and approach." However, it expressed concern that the three settlement agreements were silent as to whether 396, its insurers, or some related entity, would be getting a portion of the profits from the new development. Anaheim concluded by opposing the three motions "on the grounds that the Court cannot determine the amount that will actually be paid in settlement and cannot determine whether or not collusion existed, absent a sworn statement from 396 that neither it, its insurers, nor any related entities are receiving a portion of the profits from the new development."
After Anaheim made plain that its only objection to the settlement agreements could be cured by a sworn statement, 396 filed the requisite declaration. In that declaration, Attorney Ferrentino stated in part: "Based upon this personal knowledge, I can confidently state that neither 396 Company nor its insurers are entitled to receive . . . any interest in the profits or revenues generated . . . on this project." The court then granted the three motions for good faith settlement determination.
Thereafter, 396, its insurers, the City of Orange, and dozens of plaintiffs took action based on the fact that the court had passed upon the settlement agreements and Anaheim had represented that it had "no objection to this settlement structure and approach." The titles to numerous properties were transferred, many homes were razed, millions of dollars were paid out, the slope was re-graded, and numerous former Vista Crest and Peralta Pointe homeowners were put in a position to be able to relocate while the litigation continued on for years to come. Although Anaheim raises interesting issues concerning the different purposes behind Code of Civil Procedure sections 877.5 and 877.6 and the interplay of those two sections, we need not resolve them. The outcome of this case is determined by the ordinary principles of estoppel.
As we noted previously, "The required elements for an equitable estoppel are: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) the party to be estopped must intend his or her conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) the other party must rely upon the conduct to his or her injury. [Citation.]" (Munoz v. State of California, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1785.) Here, Anaheim was apprised of the fact that 396 had entered into three sliding scale settlement agreements and Anaheim filed limited objections to the same when the good faith settlement determination motions were being heard. It specifically stated that it had "no objection to this settlement structure and approach" and 396 was entitled to rely on this statement made before the court. 396 had no reason to believe that, even though Anaheim had made this statement and 396 had provided the declaration that Anaheim indicated was necessary to show there was no collusion, Anaheim nonetheless harbored some undisclosed intention to return to court at a later date and claim that the set
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|