 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevens v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
aluating 396's three motions for good faith settlement determination. 396 further asserted that, once the court had granted the motions, the parties relied on the good faith settlement determinations.
Attorney Ferrentino, in his supplemental declaration, stated that in reliance on the approved settlement agreements, "396 . . . and its insurers paid between $9 Million and $10 Million in settlement funds to facilitate the repair of the slope." He also declared: "The property of the Vista Royale Homeowners Association, ten homeowners on Vista Crest Drive, and four homeowners in Peralta Pointe was transferred to M.M. Orange in reliance on the effectiveness of the various agreements. Further, the City of Orange, in reliance on these agreements, filed a condemnation action . . . in order to facilitate the repair. All of these events occurred long before the trial of this matter. I am informed and believe that Anaheim was [apprised] of all of this activity and yet . . . did not object to the settlement agreements until during the trial." Attorney Ferrentino's declaration continued: "Following the transfer of title to the various property described above, M.M. Orange, LLC demolished the homes of the ten Vista Crest homeowners and the five homes in Peralta Pointe. Thereafter, M.M. Orange re-graded the entire slope. [ ] . . . As a result of all of these events and Anaheim's silence, there is no way to `un-do' the settlement agreements."
Anaheim filed a responsive supplemental brief on the issue. It stated, inter alia, that the Code of Civil Procedure section 877.5 notice of intent was required to be given before the sliding scale settlement agreements were executed "in order to allow non-settling parties a chance to return to the bargaining table before the sliding scale [settlement] agreements take effect," citing Senate Rules Committee Analysis of Assembly Bill No. 344 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) as amended August 31, 1987, page 2. Anaheim also argued that its failure to object to the good faith settlement determination motions did not constitute a waiver of compliance with section 877.5 or give rise to estoppel. Anaheim argued that the purpose of section 877.5 was to protect the non-settling defendant from the settling defendant, whereas the point of section 877.6 was to protect the settling defendant from the non-settling defendant. It also asserted that if the settling parties only needed to comply with the after-the-fact notice requirements of section 877.6, then the shorter before-the-fact notice requirements of section 877.5 would be superfluous.
In its minute order entered February 1, 2002, the trial court concluded that notice of intent was not provided 72 hours before the three agreements were executed. However, it also found that notice of the agreements was nonetheless in substantial compliance with the spirit of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.5. The court stated: "Anaheim became aware of the agreements providing the homeowner Plaintiffs the financial ability to purchase substitute homes after being ordered to vacate their homes by the regulatory agency [City of Orange]. The first date of this awareness is not clear. Declarations filed on behalf of Anaheim refer to June 15, 2000 [letter from attorney Dillion], November 1999, a newspaper article reporting on a $2,200,00.00 settlement with Vista Royale homeowners and receipt of the settlement agreements by Anaheim's attorney on or about March 4, 2000. The subject agreements were dated October 26, 1999 . . . , May 17, 2000 . . . and May 24, 2000 . . . ."
We agree with the trial court that Anaheim's motion should have been denied, although for a different reason. (See Schubert v. Reynolds (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [
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.
|
|